Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Overseas Information Services (Cost)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the overall cost of the overseas information services.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): The estimated cost in 1959–60 is £16,964,140.

Mr. Mayhew: In spite of the welcome recent improvement, is the Chancellor aware that this sum is still miserably small compared with the needs and opportunities? Will he assure the House that it is his policy to expand these services in the future, particularly the unofficial kind, the British Council, the B.B.C., and also in appropriate cases to give support to unofficial projects furthering good will and understanding between this country and other countries?

Dr. Hill: On the general point, the expenditure on overseas information services has increased in the last three years from £13 million to approximately £17 million. A substantial part of that has gone to the British Council, with particular reference to its teaching of English and its library services overseas. I do take into account the last point the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the cost of the overseas information services is attributable to the British Council, the British Broadcasting Corporation external services, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Colonial Information Services, respectively.

Dr. Hill: The proportions in 1959–60 are, approximately:—



per cent.


British Council
30·3


B.B.C. External Services
39·0


Foreign Office
18·3


Commonwealth Relations Office
8·4


Colonial Office
3·7


Other Departments
0·3

Mr. Mayhew: While it looks as though the B.B.C. and the British Council do well, is the Chancellor aware that there is a tendency when we have an overall budget like this for those bodies which have no Minister to speak for them generally to go to the wall? Will he particularly look at the B.B.C.' s position in this respect? Is the Chancellor aware that it looks as though the B.B.C. may have to cut its transmissions this year? I cannot believe that that is really the policy of the Government.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member mentioned both the British Council and the B.B.C. The expenditure in 1959–60 of the British Council is rather more than £5 million. The expenditure of the B.B.C.' s external services is rather more than £6 million. In both cases there has been some increase in the last three years, much greater in the case of the British Council.

Mr. Mayhew: And in the B.B.C.' s overseas services?

Dr. Hill: If we look at the figures for the last three years, under each of the services which were the subject of the hon. Member's Question we see there has been an increase.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how far he personally is responsible for these allocations?

Dr. Hill: Overseas Ministers are responsible for their own information policy and output. My task is to coordinate the expenditure within the permitted ceiling.

Information Posts

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many information posts are maintained overseas; and how many of these are staffed by a single information officer.

Dr. Hill: There are overseas 117 United Kingdom information posts, of which nine are staffed by one United Kingdom-based officer only, and three by one locally-recruited officer only.

Mr. Mayhew: While welcoming the apparent reduction in the number of one-man offices, may I ask whether the Chancellor agrees with the Drogheda Report that if possible these offices should be wound up because of their obvious drawbacks?

Dr. Hill: These one-man offices are for the most part sub-offices of main offices. One, that of Kingston, Jamaica, is shortly to become a two-man office. I agree with the hon. Member that, in general, a one-man office working alone suffers great disadvantages. For the most part, these are sub-offices of main ones.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Bronchitis and Emphysema

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals he has for the prescription of bronchitis or emphysema under the Industrial Injuries Act; and to what extent this question has been considered recently by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): None, Sir. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council gives a considerable amount of attention specifically to these respiratory diseases and I am keeping it informed of the results of the extensive research which is currently in hand.

Mr. Prentice: Would the Minister agree that research is pointing more and more clearly to a causal connection between working in a dusty atmosphere and suffering from these chest complaints? In particular, are there not a great number of cases in which it is evident that people with pneumoconiosis have bronchitis or emphysema associated with it? Does that not mean that the case has become stronger for prescribing these diseases in relation to persons who work in dusty conditions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With regard to the first point, I am bound to say that I

should not like to take up any position on this until I have considered much more evidence. However, I do not share the hon. Member's impression of the general way in which the evidence now stands as far as the association with pneumoconiosis is concerned. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit of the Medical Research Council is working on the specific problem of the possible relationship of the diseases.

Deafness and Bursitis

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) what proposals he has for the prescription of deafness under the Industrial Injuries Act, in respect of those working under very noisy conditions; and to what extent the question has been considered recently by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council;
(2) whether he has reached a decision to prescribe bursitis of the shoulder under the Industrial Injuries Act.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no such proposals, Sir. These are both diseases which the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council keeps under review as part of its normal duties and arrangements have been made to keep it informed of research work having a bearing on whether these diseases should be prescribed.

Mr. Prentice: With regard to deafness, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his Department pays a very large number of war disablement pensions to men who have deafness caused or aggravated by service in the Royal Artillery? Is there not a very close parallel in the case of people who work in conditions of loud noise? One thinks particularly of boilermakers. Will the right hon. Gentleman give very urgent consideration to the problem?
With regard to bursitis of the shoulder, is it not nearly two years since the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council said that it ought to be considered for prescription just as bursitis of the elbow and bursitis of the knee are already prescribed? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman somewhat overstates the reference to the disease by, not the Industrial


Injuries Advisory Council but the Industrial Diseases Sub-Committee, which, as I read it, did not amount to a recommendation for prescription. With regard to noise, there are, as the hon. Member knows, very many cases of deafness, some of which are wholly non-industrial in origin. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health has recently announced an inquiry into the general question of noise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Scottish Gas Consultative Council (Representations)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Power what representations were made to him by the Scottish Gas Consultative Council in August last, about helping them to alleviate the immediate burden of an increase in the price of gas; and what reply he made.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The Council conveyed to my right hon. Friend's predecessor its opinion:
that the interest charges on exceptional projects should, during construction, be capitalised,… and that … the Government should afford financial assistance to avoid increases in the price of gas".
It was advised that the Minister did not consider that either measure would be justified.

Mr. Rankin: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any reason why the first of the two suggestions made by the Council did not receive a little more favourable consideration than an abrupt dismissal? Were any reasons given to the Council? Apart from that, does he now realise that the way in which this increase in the price of gas has been brought about has received, and merited, widespread criticism throughout Scotland? Does he appreciate that it would be worth while looking into the public relations side of the Scottish Gas Consultative Council?

Mr. George: As to the first part of the supplementary question, consideration was given, and always will be given, to any representation made by a consultative council, but the Scottish Gas Board, as far as I am aware, has not asked for

either form of assistance suggested and, indeed, legislation would probably be necessary to effect either of them.

Fuel Oil

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Power what is the percentage of sulphur contained in fuel oil used in this country from Middle East sources; and what proportion of the fuel oil burned in this country comes from Middle East sources.

Mr. George: On the assumption that the hon. Member intends to include fuel oil made in this country from Middle East crudes, the answer to the first part of the Question is about 3 per cent. on average. The answer to the second part is about 75 per cent.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sulphur burnt in fuel oil from Middle East sources is just as harmful as that from coal burnt in non-smokeless appliances, and will he consult his colleagues with a view to amending the Clean Air Act so that oil installations burning Middle East oil are not automatically exempt from the provisions of that Act and so that coal is able to compete on equal and fair terms with oil?

Mr. George: I agree with the hon. Member that fuel oil is about equal to coal in terms of affecting the atmosphere. But one cannot generalise. Fuel oils, like coals, range widely in sulphur content. On average, each ton of Middle East fuel oil has twice as much sulphur as a ton of coal, but fuel oil has a higher calorific value than coal and each ton of fuel oil does the work of 1½–2 tons of coal. I am advised that the comparison goes, if anything, against coal, but I will take note of the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question.

Mr. Lipton: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is the general policy of the Government to rely as little as possible on the supply of oil from Middle East sources and to increase the purchase of oil from other sources?

Mr. George: That is an entirely different question.

Research

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Power what is the amount spent annually


on research into the uses of coal by the Gas Council, the National Coal Board, and the Central Electricity Generating Board, respectively; and what is the amount spent annually on research by each of these industries on the uses of oil, including the gasification of oil.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): This year the Gas Council is spending £120,000 on research into coal gasification, and the National Coal Board and Central Electricity Generating Board £680,000 and £130,000, respectively, on coal utilisation. The Gas Council is spending about £230,000 on research into the gasification of oil under a programme which is designed to contribute also towards improving the economics of coal gasification; and another £240,000 on research into problems of gas purification and the treatment of by-products.

Mr. Wyatt: Having regard to the enormous turn-over of the coal industry, does not the Minister think that these amounts spent on research into the utilisation of coal are absolutely minute and that private enterprise would be spending a far higher proportion in similar circumstances? In particular, does he not think it is scandalous that the Gas Council, operating a nationalised industry, should be spending £230,000 on research into the gasification of oil? Ought not his interests to be to persuade it to spend more money on research into the gasification of coal, a commodity which he ought to be protecting?

Mr. Wood: The answer to the last part of the supplementary question is, as I pointed out in my original answer, that the research which the Gas Council is carrying out is intended to lead to the gasification of coal. In answer to the general question which the hon. Gentleman has raised, I would repeat an answer which I gave him some time ago, which was that these matters of the further uses of coal were at the present time being examined by the Wilson Committee, which will shortly, I hope, be reporting, and if it suggests other lines of research I shall give every consideration to them.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the gas industry is spending any money on research into the production of non-poisonous gases?

Mr. Wood: As I said at the end of my answer to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), £240,000 is being spent on research into the problems of gas purification, with which that subject is associated.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not absurd that after years of propaganda about the need for research into the uses of coal —by-products and the like—and after the appointment of a scientific adviser to the National Coal Board in 1946 when the industry was nationalised, there is now talk about setting up a committee to consider the use of coal for by-products?

Mr. Wood: I think the right hon. Gentleman will have only another month or two to wait before we have a further authoritative statement on which to base our plan.

Power Stations (Fuel Oil)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Power if he will give an approximate estimate, on the basis of figures supplied to him for Table 112 of his Statistical Digest, of the amount of fuel oil consumed by dual-fired electricity generating stations in 1959 or in any recent convenient 12 month period.

Mr. Wood: Just over 3 million tons of oil were used in dual-fired boilers in 1959, out of a total fuel oil consumption at power stations of approximately 4 million tons.

Mr. Cronin: In view of the state of the coal industry, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that in future the amount of fuel oil consumed by dual-fired power stations is kept to the minimum?

Mr. Wood: I said in the debate last week that I was considering possible further modification of the programme for power stations. I take this opportunity of apologising for misleading hon. Members when, in answer to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), I said that the total possible displacement of the use of oil in power stations would benefit coal to the extent of 4 million tons. In fact, it would mean that 4 million tons of oil would not be burnt which would benefit coal to the extent of about 7½ million tons.

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Power what was the prospective shortage of British coal for power generation, as then estimated by the National Coal Board, which compelled the former Central Electricity Authority in 1955, with the support of the Government, to adopt a programme for oil burning at a number of power stations; what were the subsequent revisions of these estimates, and the reasons therefor; and what was the nature and coal equivalent of the original and revised oil-burning programmes.

Mr. Wood: In 1955, it was estimated that the total fuel requirement of the power stations in 1965 would be about 12 million tons more than the available electricity coal. This gap altered during the next few years as the result of changes in the estimated total fuel requirements of the power stations, the availability of coal for them and the nuclear programme. It has now been eliminated. The original oil conversion programme provided for the consumption of about 5½ million tons of oil (equivalent to 9 million tons of coal) in 1965; the modifications already made to the programme have reduced this to 3 million tons of oil (equivalent to 5½ million tons of coal).

Mr. Lee: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He has made it clear that this programme was not originated because of any superior economic qualities of oil as distinct from coal. His Answer shows that as the National Coal Board is now in very great trouble there is no economic reason why we should not switch over as fast as we can to coal burning in these stations.

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Power what plans have been drawn up by the Central Electricity Generating Board to convert present or planned oil-burning power stations to coal burning.

Mr. Wood: The Generating Board is discussing with the oil companies concerned a possible modification of its long-term contracts for oil supplies, and I cannot say more while these discussions are in progress.

Mr. Lee: Following upon what the right hon. Gentleman said in the debate the other day, we well understand the rather delicate nature of this matter and I will not press him further.

Methane

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Power if he will give an approximate estimate of the quantity and value of liquid methane gas imported by the gas industry in 1959 or in any recent convenient 12 month period.

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Power what volume of liquid gas has been imported since the commencement of the experiment with this form of fuel.

Mr. Wood: About 9,400 tons of liquid methane, equivalent to about 940 million cubic feet of town gas, were imported in 1959. I understand that the price paid for these shipments under the arrangements governing the experiment was about £165,000.

Mr. Cronin: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the importation of this methane is justified, in view of the very large amount of coal available for gasification?

Mr. Wood: These are experimental cargoes, and I have not yet had made to me any specific proposals for importing this methane on a commercial scale. I pointed out to the House two or three months ago that the importation of liquid methane would not necessarily be to the disadvantage of coal. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) has just been directing our attention to important processes for the gasification of coal Which provide a "lean" gas which needs enrichment by some such method as this.

Mr. Roberts: How long are these experiments likely to continue? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the experiments are successful there should be some consultation with the National Coal Board?

Mr. Wood: I do not think they will continue for very much longer before certain proposals are made to me. I should not like to pronounce on the proposals before having had the chance of knowing what they are.

Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentlemen present the report when the experiments are concluded?

Mr. Wood: No doubt I shall have an opportunity of reporting on the matter, which I know is something in which hon. Members are very interested.

Gas Mains (Accidents)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the increased number of accidents recently in Manchester and Salford and other areas arising from broken gas mains, he will consider further precautions to prevent further accidents of this kind.

Mr. George: I am not aware of any recent increase in such accidents, but the Gas Council and area boards are seeking to reduce the risks by research as to causes and by survey of mains.

Mr. Allaun: While appreciating the big efforts made in re-laying gas mains and constant inspection, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that these accidents are still occurring and are increasing? Does not that suggest that a nonpoisonous gas is the main answer to the problem?

Mr. George: I repeat that, in the district mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the number of accidents from fractured mains is decreasing and not increasing. I appreciate what he has said about the activities of the Board, which is continuing to keep this matter under review by testing and drilling. The Board will not relax its efforts to secure further safety from fractured mains.

Non-toxic Gas

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made in the production of nontoxic gas; and if he will give general directions to the gas boards to accelerate its use.

Mr. George: Modern processes for making gas from both coal and oil produce gas of low toxicity. The problem of reducing carbon monoxide in gas from older plant is a difficult one which is being urgently pursued, and no general direction is necessary.

Mr. Allaun: While the completely non-toxic gas which has been produced at Basle is very expensive, is it not the case that gas can be produced with a sufficiently low proportion of carbon monoxide to avoid injury? Can the hon. Gentleman say roughly how long he estimates it will take to implement the recommendations of the Institution of

Gas Engineers to the Gas Council, recommendations which the Council accepted? Will he publish that report which I understand still to be private?

Mr. George: Several methods are known for reducing toxicity, but their employment would involve a substantial increase in gas prices and new capital commitments. The modification of existing works would take many years. The Gas Council is seeking a more economical method, and its research department is actively engaged in examining one of the three methods with a view to improvement and to making it an economical proposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Gasification

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Power what methods of gasification of coal have been considered by his Department and by the industries responsible to his Department; which of these methods are ready for use now; and which of these methods are British in origin.

Mr. Wood: My Department, and the industries concerned, keep under examination all gasification developments at home and abroad. Their current research projects include work on slagging gasification and on the hydrogenation of coal.
Most of the new processes now available for use originated abroad. They include the Lurgi process for making town gas, the Ruhrgas process for making producer gas for under-firing coke ovens, and various forms of coal-fired producer for making gas for industrial use. The whole subject is now being examined by the Wilson Committee.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not indicative of the slothful attitude of the Government towards the whole subject of the gasification of coal and the niggardly amounts which they have spent on it that we have had to take a process from Germany instead of developing our own? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall be in a position to install a high-pressure gas grid system between London and Manchester to provide the country—at any rate, the Midlands—with a supply of cheap gas?

Mr. Wood: We have taken certain processes from Germany because, as the hon. Member knows, Germany was subjected to certain pressures in the 1930s and 1940s which were very different from the pressures to which this country was subjected. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question about a national grid system, since that is a rather different matter.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the whole subject and intensify the work of producing a proper method of gasification of coal, which could have been found years ago if enough money had been spent on it, and do something about it?

Mr. Wood: I am continually looking at the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in this country we are developing the Lurgi process in two different places. The Lurgi method is the most economical so far discovered for the total gasification of coal.

Smokeless Fuels

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the availability of the various types of smokeless fuels; and if he will give particular and up-to-date figures concerning the North Thames Gas Board, on the basis of figures supplied to him for the Ministry of Power Statistical Digest, Table 90.

Mr. George: Coke supplies are abundant. Supplies of other manufactured fuels are generally better than last year, though there are still unsatisfied demands for some. Anthracite supplies to the inland market should be increased this year, though not enough to meet all demands for the top qualities. The North Thames Gas Board made 1,329,000 tons of coke for sale in 1959; stocks at the end of the year were 630,000 tons.

Mr. Iremonger: I thank my hon. Friend for that very detailed reply. Would it be fair to say that borough councils in this area need not feel inhibited in any way in declaring fresh smokeless zones because of their anxiety about the availability of fuel?

Mr. George: Up to the moment, it has not been necessary to turn down any request for the declaration of a smokeless zone.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Gentleman give as much publicity as possible to the fact that the creation of a smokeless zone does not mean that coal cannot be burned in that area? Will he point out that the amount of smokeless fuel now available is quite extensive and that, if the public demand it, the Coal Board can produce far and away more than is now produced?

Mr. George: I think that that is the position. There are some shortages at the moment, but plans are in hand to increase the supply.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply he has given is not entirely satisfactory, since coke is not entirely suitable for use for certain types of fires in smokeless zones? Will he investigate other types of smokeless fuels, and when will he make a statement about them?

Mr. George: The hon. Member is quite correct when he refers to coke generally, but not correct when speaking of all cokes. We have premium fuels such as "Cleanglow." Under the British Standard specification for coke, "Clean-glow" is being produced and a new fuel called "Gloco", which is an improved coke, is being produced and purchased on an ever widening scale. Some cokes not suitable for open fires are being produced for closed appliances to the British Standard specification, which should lead to a better supply in the required areas.

Subsidence

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Power if he will give directions to the National Coal Board under Section 31 (1) of the Act of 1946 to include in their annual accounts a cumulative statement of compensation paid in respect of property damaged by subsidence from 1947 onwards.

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I consider the present form of the Board's accounts, which show items of expenditure, including compensation for surface damage, in the year of account only, fully meets the requirements of the Act.

Mr. Wainwright: I appreciate that Answer, but I cannot see why instructions are not given to the National Coal Board to search out the facts about such


subsidence and the cost thereof to the coal mining industry. Miners and others directly interested in the industry should know what subsidence costs the Board. I hope the Minister will—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must couch his observations in an interrogative form.

Mr. Wood: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question I will try to get him the figures or something on the lines of the figures that he would like, but I cannot agree to do what he would like me to do with the accounts.

Finance

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Power if he will state the total amount of taxpayers' money invested in the mining industry, and the total losses to date since the coal mines were nationalised.

Mr. George: At the end of 1959, the Board's outstanding liability to the Minister in respect of compensation and capital advances was £941 million. The Board's accumulated deficit on profit and lass account, less reserve fund, was about £50 million.

Lieut.- Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Will my hon. Friend not agree that the mining industry has followed in every detail the golden rule set by all nationalised industries—[An HON. MEMBER: "Like B.E.A."]—which is to give the public worse service and worse quality at greatly increased cost to the consumer? I wonder whether my hon. Friend will clear up one point which is causing concern? Which does his Department consider the biggest millstone round the necks of the taxpayers, the mining industry or British Railways?

Mr. George: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the National Coal Board is doing everything in its power to work the mines efficiently and give satisfaction to its customers.

Mr. Lee: The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) asked about the total losses to date. Would the Minister agree that in the 1958 Report of the National Coal Board we see that profits were over £180 million from coal workings, despite the fact that about £60 million was lost on the importation of

foreign coal? Would he not also agree that in respect of interest payments, which the hon. and gallant Member is concerned about, the Board has paid back to the Ministry about £240 million in interest rates since it came into existence.

Mr. George: I should like to correct one misunderstanding which might arise from the Question. In fact, it is not taxpayers' money. The money is paid from the Consolidated Fund, and the National Coal Board has not defaulted in its responsibility to pay interest, or to repay principal.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my hon. Friend neglected to observe that in his original Answer he referred to a loss on the trading account of the National Coal Board of £50 million up to 31st December, 1959? Having regard to continuing losses which he himself admits during the current year, would he not now admit that the figure of loss at the end of this year, 1960, might reach the astronomical figure of £100 million, all of which has to be provided by the taxpayer and nobody else?

Mr. George: My hon. Friend is giving his idea of the loss at the end of next year—

Mr. Nabarro: I did not say next year. I said this year.

Mr. George: —at the end of this year, but he never at any time produces any facts to back up his statements. His statements are very often of a very wild nature, and this is no exception.

Mr. Snow: In any event, are we not indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) for giving such wide publicity to the vast amount of money being paid in compensation for pits, many of which were job lots?

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the Minister that, in spite of this sniping against the National Coal Board—

Mr. Nabarro: Not sniping against, voting against.

Mr. Shinwell: —the Government do not intend to denationalise the coal industry? Could we have that assurance?

Mr. George: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the wild reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest moment.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat my request that hon. Members should adhere to the traditional formula.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. May I delete "wild" and substitute "highly unsatisfactory".

Output

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Power if he will give the average output per coal miner each year since the coal industry was nationalised, on the basis of figures supplied to him for compiling Tables 11 to 14 of his Statistical Digest.

Mr. George: Average output per man year rose from 265 tons in 1947 to 305 tons in 1951. It was 294 tons last year with permission, I will circulate the res of the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are extremely disappointed that he has knocked the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) for six and made him too timid to ask a supplementary question? Is it not a fact that output per man-shift, either on that level or on the price of coal, shows that the British coal industry is one of the most valuable coal industries in the world and is, indeed, a very great credit both to the National Coal Board and to the miners?

Mr. George: On the question of output per man-shift, which in some ways is a better yardstick than output per man-year, since it eliminates variations in work-time, it has moved upwards, with no substantial reverse, from 1·09 tons in 1947 to 1·26 tons in 1958, and to 1·33 tons in 1959.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In view of the fact that there has been at least a 75 per cent. increase in mechanisation in the mines, ought not production to be considerably higher? I wonder whether my hon. Friend can clear up the one point which is bothering us on these benches? Which does his Department consider the biggest

millstone round the necks of the taxpayers, the mining industry or British Railways?

Mr. George: I would not seek to answer the last part of my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question, but I am not aware that the Government consider either of the two industries a millstone round the necks of the taxpayers.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister also aware that we very much welcome his change of attitude? He left the coal mines when they were nationalised and has now come back to them because he has seen how well the industry is working, and he is defending it very effectively.

Mr. George: That is scarcely a supplementary question to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lee: Is it not the case that in two very important regions of the Coal Board, which are becoming increasingly important within the general plan. we have already reached the stage of 40 cwt. per man-shift?

Mr. George: I have not the actual figures, but I know that in the Midlands area the figure of 40 cwt. per man-shift has been reached.

Following are the figures:


—
Below and above ground
Underground only


1947
…
…
265
341


1948
…
…
275
350


1949
…
…
283
363


1950
…
…
295
379


1951
…
…
305
392


1952
…
…
301
384


1953
…
…
298
379


1954
…
…
303
383


1955
…
…
299
376


1956
…
…
298
375


1957
…
…
296
371


1958
…
…
288
360


1959
…
…
294
366


The figures have been adjusted to give comparability with the latest year except that the last four relate to periods of 52 weeks and earlier periods are calendar years.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Air Navigation Aids

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Aviation whether the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisations has yet met to consider the recommendations of the special conference on


Air Navigational Aids; what were the decisions of such meeting; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation has not yet met to consider the recommendations of the special meeting on shortrange air navigation aids. It is expected to do so during the course of the next few months.

Olympic Airways (Comet Aircraft)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the terms on which Comet aircraft are being supplied by British European Airways to Olympic Airways.

Mr. Rippon: It would be contrary to normal practice to disclose the terms of this contract.

Sir A. V. Harvey: We welcome the selling of aircraft to any foreign country, but can my hon. Friend say why there is so much secrecy about what should be a normal commercial matter? Is he aware that quite recently aircraft were sold to the Egyptian Government through a recognised agency? Why cannot he be more explicit about the terms of this deal, which we all welcome?

Mr. Rippon: This is a normal commercial matter. The arrangement is part of a commercial agreement between B.E.A. and Olympic. It would be neither in B.E.A.' s interest nor the national interest to publish details of such matters.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are public agencies which undertake this type of deal, such as the Export Credits Guarantee Department? An operating industry like B.E.A. is not there to sell aircraft on the hire-purchase system over a period of years.

Aircraft Industry

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what plans he has for maintaining full employment in the aircraft industry.

Mr. Rippon: The level of employment in the aircraft industry depends upon the total demand for its products, both military and civil. With Government

approval, the industry is regrouping itself into larger and stronger units. This reorganisation will enable the industry to compete more effectively in world markets and so improve employment prospects.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Minister is responsible for the creation of the five mergers and that, as a result, thousands of men will gradually be squeezed out of their jobs in this industry. Is it not logical that the Minister should assume some responsibility for the future of the men who will lose their jobs as a result of the merger?

Mr. Rippon: The correct argument is exactly the reverse of that put forward by the hon. Member. We believe that the reorganisation which the industry is itself carrying out will improve prospects for employment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my hon. Friend or the Minister make a statement to the House about these very large mergers, stating to what extent, if at all, Government money is involved? There have been many newspaper reports, but the public is largely in the dark as to what is happening.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is limited to the matter of employment. The hon. Member has raised a different question.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent he proposes to seek Government representation on the boards of the five groups now created by the mergers in the aircraft industry.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend is not contemplating making any proposal of this kind.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money will now be invested in research, development and production in the aircraft industry? In view of that fact, surely there ought to be some form of public control, by way of Government representation on the boards of the new mergers.

Mr. Rippon: There is no reason to suppose that the traditional methods of Government control, where public money is invested in industry—that is to say, through technical, financial and


contractual means—would be any more effective as a result of Government representation on the boards.

Sir A. V. Harvey: As there is one Government company in existence—or a company controlled by the Government—namely, Short and Harland's. which has lost money over a number of years, would it not be a good thing to bring men from private industry into that company to try to make a profit?

Mr. Rippon: That is an exceptional case, and is not covered by the Question, because it is not a group created by a merger.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the very large sums of public money paid into this industry in one form or another, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for the Government's demanding some equity shareholding in these companies, which would carry with it the right of appointing directors to the boards?

Mr. Rippon: There are other means of securing a return on the Government's expenditure, such as a levy on sales to other customers, as is provided for in contracts.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I now ask my question on the wider aspect of the matter? Will there be a general statement by the Minister as to what is happening now in relation to these mergers?

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend is likely to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Rankin: Are we to assume that there is to be no form of accountability to the public and this House for these vast sums of money?

Mr. Rippon: There is accountability in the ways I have suggested, but the Government do not want to become involved in day-to-day management. The House has evidence to show that the industry has always shown a readiness to co-operate with its major customers.

Eurocontrol

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress has been made at the recent Paris meeting on Eurocontrol; to what extent Her Majesty's Government are co-operating; and what plan they have submitted.

Mr. Rippon: Her Majesty's Government are co-operating fully in the studies of the Eurocontrol project. A technical planning group is now being set up and this will meet for the first time on 15th February.

Mr. Mason: Can the Minister say to what extent he visualises marrying the N.A.T.O. radar network to the civil control in order to overcome the problem of air congestion in Europe?

Mr. Rippon: This group will work closely with a N.A.T.O. sub-committee and will consider these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPACE RESEARCH

International Committee on Space Research

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Aviation, as representing the Minister for Science, to what extent Her Majesty's Government are assisting the development of the International Committee on Space Research; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom contribution to date.

Mr. Rippon: Participation by United Kingdom scientists in the work of this non-Governmental scientific body, known as COSPAR, is the responsibility of the Royal Society and its British National Committee on Space Research. The Society knows that it is Government policy to welcome the development of COSPAR's arrangements for international collaboration. I am informed that our scientists have in fact played a full and important part in all COSPAR's activities and that the British National Committee have kept COSPAR fully informed of all relevant scientific developments in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mason: Does not this seem to be an ideal body to receive Government recognition? Should not we have Government representatives on it, and not merely members of the Royal Society? Secondly, does not this seem to be an ideal avenue for the consideration of space research by East and West, enabling the matter to be kept on a peaceful plane? Is he satisfied with the contribution that we have made to date?

Mr. Rippon: The position is that COSPAR is one of the committees of the International Council of Scientific


Unions. It is a non-Governmental organisation, which means that there cannot be direct Governmental representation. I agree that this is a matter in which all countries can collaborate. It continues the research which was started during the International Geophysical Year.

Mr. Chetwynd: On the general question of space research, can the hon. Member say whether the responsibility rests with his Department or with the Minister for Science?

Mr. Rippon: The Question is concerned only with the position of the International Committee on Space Research. There is another Question on the Order Paper, for another day, on the general aspect of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Footwear (Design)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Health what reports he has received from medical officers of health about the problems revealed at orthopaedic clinics caused by teen-age girls' footwear; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): References to foot defects caused by unsuitable footwear are made from time to time by principal school medical officers in their published annual reports. Local health authorities, with the aid of publicity material provided by the Ministry and from other sources, continue to give publicity to the importance of foot health.

Mr. Iremonger: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware of the very great importance of this matter? Does she not think that her right hon. and learned Friend might take the initiative, possibly in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Education, in trying to make more impact both on the supplier and the consumer about the dangers of this footwear?

Miss Pitt: My right hon. and learned Friend is certainly aware of the importance of this problem, but it is not an easy one because so often fashion is

opposed to commonsense. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that an independent survey of the feet of children of various ages is to be undertaken as a research project. This is to be privately financed, but the details have not yet been fully worked out.

Dr. Summerskill: Having regard to what the hon. Lady has said, would she not agree that this question should be very much on the consciences of fashion dictators, who are not all concerned about the crippling of young women's feet?

Miss Pitt: No, I do not agree. It is really a matter for parents and others who have responsibility for children to try to impress upon them the importance of good footwear.

Welfare Foods, Sunderland

Mr. Wiley: asked the Minister of Health whether the consumption of welfare foods in Sunderland shows an upward or downward trend; and what action is being taken.

Miss Pitt: There was an upward trend in 1959 in the amounts of orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets distributed in Sunderland. It is our constant endeavour, by persuasion and appropriate publicity, to secure that welfare foods are taken by those who need them.

Preludin

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health (1) what action he proposes to take regarding the recommendation in the Interim Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Drug Addiction, that any drug or pharmaceutical preparation which has an action on the central nervous system and is liable to produce physical or psychological deterioration, should be confined to supply on prescription; and
(2) whether he now proposes to prohibit the sale, without medical prescription, of preludin.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): As I explained in my reply on 7th December, 1959, to the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) and Barking (Mr. Driberg), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as an interim and urgent measure, has asked the


Poisons Board to advise him which of the substances referred to by the Interdepartmental Committee should be limited to supply on prescription, under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. I understand from my right hon. Friend that the Poisons Board has held a special meeting to consider the matter and that he expects its report very shortly.

Dr. Summerskill: May I remind the Minister that the whole question of the administration and consumption of this dangerous drug, preludin, was considered in this House a year ago after comments had been made in a coroner's court? Since then, there have been other fatalities. Could he not at least prohibit the sale of this drug without medical prescription? Will he read the report on the drug industry by a sub-committee of the Senate in the United States? In view of the fact that American firms are making such headway in this country, should we not take warning from the revelations which were made to the Senate last week?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The question of this drug can be dealt with only under the procedure of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. An interim report by the Inter-Departmental Committee was received on 21st January; the Poisons Board has already met, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be very shortly making his statement in regard to action.

Mr. Snow: Following the second part of the question asked by my right hon. Friend about the sub-committee of the Monopolies Committee of the Senate, will the Minister take particular action because companies subject to that investigation in America have parallel activities over here by virtue of their branch companies, and the position is getting very serious?

Mr. Walker-Smith: That raises rather wider questions than are implicit in the Question I have answered, but I shall certainly consider the points made by the hon. Member.

Poliomyelitis (Vaccination)

Mr. Hopkins: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to announce a further extension of the poliomyelitis vaccine programme.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on his plan to extend the vaccination programme against poliomyelitis to higher age groups.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. Having reviewed the progress that has been made in the existing programme of vaccination against poliomyelitis, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided that the time has now come for extending it to cover all persons who at the time of their application for vaccination are under 40, and also certain additional special groups. The necessary circulars are being issued today.

Mr. Hopkins: While thanking the Minister, may I express the hope that his Answer will give universal satisfaction?

Dr. Summerskill: While we all welcome the statement of the Minister, will he tell us something more about the administration? This will call for three injections for each of these healthy adults. There will be a very large number, and it will mean a rather heavy burden on general practitioners. Does the Minister propose to have lunch-time clinics or evening clinics run by local authorities so that the work can be done there?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The detailed arrangements are for the local health authorities to make. One of the factors I have had in mind is the question of the mechanical work involved, to which the right hon. Lady rightly draws attention, but I am greatly encouraged by the fact that we have now vaccinated nearly 13 million people, more than half of them with three doses. This has meant a great effort on the part of local health authorities and general practitioners. I am sure we can look with confidence to their repeating their success with this extended group.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Young Children (Admission of Mothers)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what guidance he has given or proposes to give to regional boards and management committees, in the light of the recommendation of the


Platt Committee on the Welfare of Children in Hospital, relating to the admission of the mother to hospital along with the sick child, especially when the child is under five.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have invited hospital authorities to implement all the recommendations of this Committee that concern matters within their jurisdiction.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware of the very successful experiment carried on in Amersham Hospital in this direction, which has been shown to be in the interests not only of children and parents but of nursing staff? In the light of that, will he pay particular attention to this recommendation and do his best to encourage other hospital authorities to follow suit?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I shall certainly look at that with interest in the context of all the information I shall be shortly getting. The hon. Member may recall that when I sent out the original memorandum I said that in twelve months I should call for a report on the action taken. I shall be shortly calling for that report.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the discussions at the proposed Summit Conference will be confined to European problems.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby-Gore): It has been agreed that there should be no formal agenda for the Summit Conference, but I am sure that the discussions will not be limited to European problems.

Mr. Shinwell: If the discussions are not to be limited to European problems and if, by any Chance, problems which concern Asia or some other part of the globe should be placed on the agenda, are we to understand that representatives of Commonwealth countries will be invited to attend and to take part in the proceedings?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I said to the right hon. Gentleman that there was not to be a formal agenda, so there is no question

of placing certain subjects on the agenda. If discussions take place about other parts of the world and involve the position of other countries, obviously no decision taken on those matters could possibly be carried out without getting the approval of the countries concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Submarines

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Germany is being allowed to commission a 2,000-ton submarine in contravention of the Paris Treaty of 1954 which limits German submarines to 350 tons.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): There has been no contravention of the revised Brussels Treaty. By it, the Federal Republic of Germany undertook not to manufacture submarines of more than 350 tons displacement. The submarine of 1,600 tons to which the hon. Member refers is an old one that has not been salvaged for active service.

Mr. Allaun: Is that not a quibble? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this submarine has been completely re-equipped, carries six torpedo tubes and can be switched instantly to warlike use? Is that not as dangerous and as illegal as making a completely new vessel? Is it not another encouragement to Germany to break the limitations on arms which at present exist?

Mr. Allan: The information I have is completely in conflict with that given by the hon. Member. In any event, the submarine would be subject to inspection by the Arms Control Agency of W.E.U.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not the case that the Council of Ministers of Western European Union has received a communication from the Assembly that Western Germany should be allowed to manufacture submarines up to 2,000 tons? What is the attitude of the Government to this Recommendation? Do they approve or oppose it?

Mr. Allan: I understand it has not yet been received by the Council of Ministers.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the subject of the provision of nuclear weapons by Western Germany.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Under the terms of the Revised Brussels Treaty, the Federal Republic of Germany undertook not to manufacture nuclear weapons. That undertaking still stands.
Her Majesty's Government's policy on the provision of such weapons for German forces has been explained fully both by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my right hon. and learned Friend. I would refer the right hon. Member in particular to the Answer given to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on 2nd December, 1958.
I would add that the decision on this matter was taken by the N.A.T.O. Council meeting at Head of Government level as long ago as December, 1957.

Mr. Shinwell: That is all very well, but is it not a fact that the West German Federal Government are now to be provided, under the terms of the revised Treaty, with weapons of nuclear capability, and is that not altogether foreign to the policy previously declared by Her Majesty's Government and supported 100 per cent. by this side of the House? Is that not the position? Why this change? Can we trust the Germans with weapons of this character?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The position has been the same for a very long time, namely, that they would have weapons which might have nuclear capability if they had nuclear warheads. But there is no question of nuclear warheads being handed over to the German armed forces.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are not some of the weapons which it is suggested should now be made available to Germany of such considerable range and of such a character that they would not be used except with nuclear warheads?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The main point is that the nuclear warheads would be under the control of the United States.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the use of quibbling on this fact? Why do not the Government come clean about this matter? What have they to conceal? Is it not obvious that if the West German Government are provided with missiles capable of a range of 60, 70 or even 100 miles, as is the position at present, they would have no value whatever without nuclear warheads? What is the purpose unless it is intended to provide warheads? Why do the Government maintain that the control is vested not in the German Government but in some other authority? How do they know that the Germans will not use them without any consultation?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think it is a quibble to say that the nuclear warheads would not be under the control of the German armed forces but would be under the control of the United States Administration. It is a policy which has been discussed before in this House, but as I understand there will be an opportunity of discussing it again, probably next week, I think that would be the best time to do so.

CYPRUS

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the negotiations about Cyprus.
The basis of the London Agreements of last year was that the United Kingdom should hand over to the new Republic sovereignty over Cyprus except for two areas to be retained under full British sovereignty. It was also agreed that the Republic should assure to us the rights and facilities on their territory necessary to enable the two areas to be used effectively as military bases.
The locations of the sovereign base areas were indicated in general terms in the Agreements. At first, we thought that it would be necessary to retain areas in which about 16,000 Cypriots resided. That figure was mentioned by me last year during the London Conference.
We later tried our best to restrict the size of the areas and to reduce the number of Cypriots living in them. That has always been our wish. Our first formal statement of our requirements


referred to an area between 150 and 170 square miles, including a Cypriot population of about 4,500. Using square miles as a measurement gives a misleading impression of size. It is roughly equivalent to a 12½ mile square split into two portions.
Later, we made a further effort to reduce these areas and last week I put to the delegations areas amounting to about 120 square miles and involving the reduction of the number of Cypriots living in them to under 1,000. The only village remaining under British sovereignty would then be Akrotiri, and we have offered to rehouse in the Republic at our expense any of the inhabitants of that village who wish to leave.
The fear was expressed that the Island of Cyprus would not continue to be a single economic and administrative unit. We have tried to meet that point. We have undertaken not to set up a colonial-type administration in the two areas, and not to use them in any way as a means of competing with the Republic or disrupting the economic unity of the island.
We are prepared to make arrangements under which the Government of the Republic should carry out many important administrative functions within the sovereign base areas so that life would be much the same for the Cypriots wherever they lived or worked. We have no wish, I repeat, to use the sovereign base areas for other than purely military purposes and certainly not to deprive the Republic of any economic advantage. There is no question of a separate little "colony".
These arrangements in the sovereign areas must, of course, be subject to our military and security requirements, a qualification which both Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders fully accepted during the recent talks. Another condition is that there should be no discrimination by the Republic against those who live or work in the sovereign base areas. This, also, was accepted,
Archbishop Makarios has accepted the concept of sovereign base areas, but has maintained that they should be restricted to 36 square miles, in other words, an area of 6 miles by 6 miles on the argument that we should be restricted to

existing military establishments with some elbow room and communication territory.
What, however, has also to be taken into account is that one of our purposes has been to get as many as possible of the intallations which would otherwise be scattered throughout the rest of the island into these two sovereign base areas. Last February there were over 100 sites and installations on what will be the territory of the Republic. They covered about 5,500 acres. We have reduced these to less than 2,900 acres, of which about 1,100 are only temporary, in other words, a permanent requirement of only 1,800 acres of which Nicosia airfield accounts for about 1,150.
We have reduced the number of permanent sites to 19. This is only possible by having room in the sovereign base areas for this redeployment. If regard is had to the fact that a base area, to be of any value, must have room for reasonable dispersion and also be adequate to receive reinforcements in a time of emergency, I believe that it will be generally acknowledged that our position is reasonable and, indeed, a minimum.
In addition, we have accepted considerable restrictions upon movement and training over the territory of the Republic. We have agreed that the United Kingdom should not own property in the Republic, even within the sites provided, without the consent of the Cypriot Government.
We have offered to hand over air traffic control at Nicosia airfield, including the control of military aircraft, to the Cypriot authorities as soon as suitably qualified personnel are available, subject to special arrangements in the event of an emergency. This has been agreed.
Subject to the clearing up of certain financial points, we have offered a grant of £7½ million to be spread over five years, together with £½ million to meet certain Turkish-Cypriot requests which both communities have endorsed. We have offered a loan of up to £2 million for financing an extension of the electricity service in the island. If Cyprus remains in the Commonwealth, she will be eligible for Commonwealth Assistance Loans.
We calculate that the earnings to Cyprus to be derived from the presence of our troops, their families, the work


done in the bases, etc., will be between £15 and £20 million a year. For example, about 15,000 Cypriots will have employment within the sovereign base areas.
With regard to the Commonwealth, we have agreed to draft the Cyprus Bill in such a way as to keep the position open until after independence, so that Cyprus can then decide whether or not to seek membership. That means that, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, Cyprus will have the advantages of Commonwealth membership during this interim period pending a decision.
On leaving London Airport, Archbishop Makarios said that there had been profitable discussion and exchange of views during the past 14 days. I have been present at all but two of the sessions myself. We have sat long hours, there has been a good deal of argument, we have made many concessions, and, in fact, we have cleared up many points.
On some important matters, however, there has not yet been agreement. They must all be settled before the Bill for the independence of Cyprus can be brought before the House. The date for independence was postponed from 19th February to 19th March, at Cypriot request. There is not much time if we are to pass the Bill in the House in time for independence on 19th March.
Meanwhile, the London Committee has remained hard at work on the texts of the agreements under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Some further progress has been made since the departure of Archbishop Makarios and Dr. Kutchuk.
The Greek and Turkish Governments are also, of course, signatories of the London Agreements and I was grateful to my colleagues, the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey, for their presence and help during the first few days of this series of meetings.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he still expects that 19th March can be the date for Cypriot independence? If so, how does he propose that the negotiations should be resumed? Does he propose to take any initiative in that direction? Is he aware that Sir Hugh Foot said the other day that delay in

this matter was disastrous? Does he agree with that statement? Would he care to comment on it?
On the particular issues in dispute, are we right in understanding that the main question at issue is the size of the bases? How does it come about that there is such a wide divergence of opinion between us and the Cypriot leaders who, as I understand, took the view that the total area was to be no more than 12 square miles, as implied in the Agreements of last year, whereas, even after making what are called "concessions," Her Majesty's Government are asking for an area about twelve times as large? Did not these differences come out during the negotiations last year?

Mr. Lloyd: I still hope that the date of 19th March, will be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman asked what is happening in the way of negotiations. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is still at work with the London Committee on certain matters affecting the Agreements, not entirely matters of detail but matters of importance. In addition, discussions are taking place in Cyprus. I think that we must accept the fact that that is now the place where further negotiations must take place if that date is to be achieved. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether failure to meet that date would be a disaster. I think that it will be unfortunate if we cannot meet the date of 19th March.
When we were originally discussing this plan it was suggested that it should be carried out within six months. We on the British side thought that it was quite impossible to carry through all the complicated legal and administrative matters within six months and we said that we thought that efforts should be made to achieve it within a year, but we had grave doubts whether it was possible to do the work in the time. Those who have had to examine the voluminous Agreements which we have been looking at in the last fortnight realise that there is a great deal of work to be done. Even so, I hope that the work will be finished for 19th March.
As for the interpretation of the Agreement, I do not think that any reasonable person reading the terms of the Agreement, which was set out in Cmnd. 679, could possibly have thought from


the British declaration that we were restricting ourselves to the actual installations which were then in occupation. It was quite clear that we were thinking of two areas. We went on to say:
That, with the exception of two areas at

 (a) Akrotiri-Episkopi-Paramali, and
(b) Dhekelia-Pergamos-Ayios Nikolaos-Xylophagou, which will be retained under full British sovereignty, they are willing to transfer sovereignty over the Island of Cyprus to the Republic of Cyprus subject to the following conditions:—
(1) that such rights are secured to the United Kingdom Government as are necessary to enable the two areas as aforesaid to be used effectively as military bases …
I think that that clearly shows that we had a base area in mind and that the size to which we have reduced the area is a minimum.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it a fact that the negotiations will be continued by the Governor in Cyprus with the leaders of the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities? Secondly, on the point at issue, may I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this question: did the two areas mentioned specifically—and they were the only two areas mentioned in the Agreement which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted—cover an area of 144 square miles or only 12 square miles?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it is unreasonable to question me on exactly how further negotiations will take place. I have already given him an impression about the Governor's conversations in Cyprus. No idea was ever given at any time that this area would be restricted to 12 square miles. I maintain that, reading this Agreement, and particularly having regard to what was said at the time about 16,000 Cypriots being within the area, it is quite clear that we have been thinking of very much larger areas than those to which we have ultimately come down.

Mr. Wall: May I ask about the possible relationship of Cyprus with the Commonwealth? Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what is envisaged? Is it envisaged that the Republic should have a membership similar to that of Nigeria or South Africa, or is a special relationship envisaged?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter which must be left until Cyprus is independent. It is very important that the decision should be made by the Republic of Cyprus as to what sort of membership she should seek. It will then be a matter for the other members of the Commonwealth to deal with that suggestion.

Mr. de Freitas: Is not this a case in which the Service Departments are far more acceptable to the Cypriots than is the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office, because of past associations? Would it not be wise in the next stage of negotiations to treat this matter as purely military and to leave a great deal of the negotiations to the Service Departments?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not certain that that would have a consequence of reducing the size of the areas. I am grateful to the hon. Member for asking the question, for it enables me to make it absolutely clear that it will be the military authorities who will have the administration of this area.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most reasonable people will believe that the Government have gone to the absolute limit in the concessions which they have made? More specifically, have any instructions been sent out to the armed forces and to the police that it may not be possible to maintain their scheduled dates of return to this country?

Mr. Lloyd: The very fact of postponement of the date from 19th February to 19th March must have had some administrative consequences. I should like specific notice of that question.

Mr. Tomney: What possible use is a base of this type to anybody? Would it not be better to withdraw completely and allow the Cyprus Government freedom to draw the appropriate conclusions?

Mr. Lloyd: We do not take that view. We think that there is value in this base and that it is important to retain these base areas. The whole bargain of last year, to which the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities and the Greek and Turkish Governments were parties, was that we should retain these sovereign base areas in the island and other facilities. We believe that it is in our national interest that we should do so.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the comment by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and the use by the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the word "minimum", may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that both these things bear an unpleasant relationship with the use of the word "never" by the then Mr. Henry Hopkinson, when he was in this House, with such terrible consequences?
As for the bases themselves, does not the right hon. and, learned Gentleman agree with me, from his Ministry of Defence days, that whatever is provided in the Agreement, in the end the military value of the bases is bound to depend on the degree of good will which we can get from the local people? Is it not better to keep that in mind, too?

Mr. Lloyd: I have heard that argument used many times before. Of course, bases are very much more valuable if we have the good will of the people who are near them and who have to work in them. I believe that we shall have the good will of those people. Nevertheless, in cases like this we have to take into account the possibility of an emergency. I feel that we have to retain under our own sovereignty areas which in an emergency can be used to contain considerable forces—areas in which we can take, by our own right, certain precautionary steps. We have to retain what is the barest minimum for this purpose.
We have to be able to do what we think is right in an area which is under our own sovereignty. Indeed, it may be of great advantage to the Government of Cyprus of the day that it should be an area which is under our sovereignty and for which we have sole responsibility.

Mr. W. Yates: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a base in Cyprus will not be of any value to us unless it commands the good will and support of the Cypriot people? Further, will he consider carefully the long-term political implications of this? A base may be valuable today, but must we not strengthen the hands of the Cypriot Government and keep out the AKEL Communists and those who wish to wreck the London Agreements?

Mr. Lloyd: We have put forward in the negotiations a number of proposals which will have precisely the effect of

making the Agreement more acceptable in Cyprus. The proposals for administration within the sovereign areas are designed exactly for that purpose. We have made a considerable number of concessions over our facilities, training rights and such matters in the territory of the Republic. It is quite true that we want the good will of the people of the Republic, but I do not believe that depends on the size of the sovereign areas.

Mr. Donnelly: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House just what this base is for in circumstances in which we have not got the co-operation of the local population? Is not this the hinge of the matter? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary explain why he took up a final position on 156 square miles and has now reduced it to 120 square miles? Will he let us know when he is taking up another final position.

Mr. Lloyd: I did not take up a final position on the 156 square miles. When we came to these negotiations we promised to do what we could to reexamine whether it was possible to reduce the areas. We did that and came down to about 120 square miles. One hundred and twenty square miles is about 11 miles by 11 miles, split into two bits. Any hon. Members who have any experience of the last war will agree that that is a very small area indeed. I do not believe that that area can be reduced. It is a minimum.
Of course, we want the good will, I repeat, of the Cypriot people and I think that the way in which we have tackled the negotiations, which have been carried out with good will and in a good spirit, has proved that. The hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions about the value of the base. I think that it is important that we should keep such a base.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the military authorities in Cyprus recently explained to Mr. Randolph Churchill that the military purpose of the base was to serve as a jumping-off ground for bombing the Russian oilfields, and that that was its only purpose? If that is so, does not he understand that there might be retaliatory action and that the fears of the Cypriots are perfectly justified?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not responsible for what people say to Mr. Randolph Churchill.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Question before the House and we cannot debate this now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The first main proposal of the Bill is to extend the scope of the Legal Aid and Advice Acts of 1949 so that many people who now cannot qualify for legal aid and advice under those Acts will be able to do so. Its second main purpose is to modify the financial contributions which those who obtain legal aid are called upon to make.
Before I say any more about the contents of the Bill, may I remind the House that the Rushcliffe Committee, appointed by Lord Simon when he was Lord Chancellor, on which I had the honour to serve, when it reported in May, 1945, put forward a complete scheme for legal aid and advice. In 1949, the vast majority of the Committee's recommendations were embodied in the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, and the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949.
Owing to the financial situation of the country at the time, only those parts of the English Act relating to legal aid in the Supreme Court and in the Scottish Act relating to legal aid in connection with civil proceedings before the court of session and the sheriff court were brought into force on 2nd October, 1950. The decision of the Labour Government, inevitable though no doubt it was in view of the circumstances of the time—I am not criticising it—has complicated the administration of the legal aid schemes ever since.
Whenever more money has been available, the question has arisen whether the financial provisions should be amended to bring them up to date or whether the scheme should be enlarged by bringing into force other Sections of the Acts. The Advisory Committee constituted under the Act, while drawing attention on a number of occasions to the severity of the financial contributions required under the 1949 Act, in its second, third and fourth annual Reports recommended the introduction of legal


advice and in its fifth Report recommended that that should be done before the financial provisions were altered. It also criticised the omission to provide legal aid in county courts and for civil proceedings in magistrates courts.
In 1954, legal aid was extended to proceedings in the Chancery Court of the County Palatine of Lancaster. On 1st January, 1956, it was extended to county courts, the Chancery Court of the County Palatine of Durham, the Liverpool Court of Passage, the Salford Hundred Court, the Bristol Tolzey Court and the Norwich Guildhall Court.
On 2nd March, 1959, the sections in the English and Scottish Acts providing for oral legal advice came into force, and my noble Friend, on 12th June, 1958, made an announcement with regard to the bringing into force of the provisions relating to legal aid in matters not involving litigation. He made a further announcement on 16th December, 1959, with regard to legal aid in magistrates courts and courts of quarter sessions in matrimonial and affiliation proceedings. On 20th May, 1958, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also made an announcement about the implementation of Sections 21 to 23 of the English Act. The provisions concerning legal aid in matters not involving litigation and those relating to criminal cases to which I have referred will come into operation next March. It is against that background that the Bill has to be considered.
Since 1951, very considerable progress has been made in extending the application of the legal aid schemes. Now we are able to turn—I am very glad that we are able to do so—to amending the financial provisions. Under the Legal Aid Acts of 1949 legal aid is now available to anyone whose disposable income does not exceed £420 a year. That is subject to the proviso that a person may be refused legal aid if he has a disposable capital of more than £500 and it appears that he could afford to proceed without legal aid.
Under those Acts a person receives free legal aid only if his income does not exceed £156 a year. In making these provisions in their legislation in 1949, the Socialist Government followed the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee which reported in 1945. I need hardly remind the House that between

1945 and 1949 the cost of living rose considerably, but no adjustment was made of the figures recommended by the Rushcliffe Committee.
Perhaps I should explain what the words "disposable income" and "disposable capital" mean. They mean the income or capital left after making various deductions. The deductions include rent including repairs, sums in respect of dependants, Income Tax, National Insurance and other insurance contributions, trade union subscriptions, the expense of travelling to employment, superannuation payments and reasonable hire purchase commitments.
In its Report of June, 1959, the Advisory Committee recommended that the upper disposable income limit should be raised from £420 to £750, and that the upper disposable income limit for free legal aid should be raised from £156 to £275. As the House will see, the present Bill proposes that the limits should be, not £750 but £700, and not £275 but £250. The Government have thus not been able to accent the Advisory Committee's recommendation in full, and I feel that I should explain why.
The Committee based its recommendations on two grounds. The first was that the increase from £420 to £750 reflected closely the 75 per cent. increase in the cost of living since the Rushcliffe Committee reported in 1945. The other was that in 1949, 24½ million people had incomes that brought them within the financial limits of the Acts, and the increase the Advisory Committee proposed would bring in 25 million people.
It is true that the cost of living has risen by 75 per cent.—in fact, I am told that the figure is 78·5 per cent.—since 1945, the date of the Rushcliffe Committee's Report, but since Parliament approved the present financial limits in 1949 the cost of living has risen by 52 per cent. Raising the upper limit to £700 is an increase of 66 per cent. so that the limit now proposed is really higher than the limit fixed in 1949. It more than meets the rise in the cost of living that has occurred since then.
It must also be borne in mind that the Government have already implemented the Advisory Committee's recommendations for certain increases in the amounts that can be deducted from the gross income to arrive at the total disposable


income, and that, itself, has increased the scope of the legal aid schemes.
Under our proposals, a single person with a gross income of £1,000, and with, say, £478 deductible to determine his disposable income, will be entitled to legal aid, and his maximum contribution will be £90 10s. A married man with three children and with a gross income of £1,500, and deductions from that of, say, £639, will be entitled to legal aid, and his maximum contribution will be £123. I think—indeed, I hope—that the House will agree that those with incomes above these limits should be able to finance their own litigation.
As I have said, we do not propose to raise the limit for free legal aid quite as high as the Advisory Committee recommended. If I may remind the House, that Committee's figure was £275; ours is £250. The Committee's figure represents an increase of 76·2 per cent. over the Rushcliffe Committee's proposals. As I say, the cost of living has risen 52 per cent. since 1949. The Government's proposals are an increase of 60·2 per cent. on the figure fixed in 1949, which more than counterbalances the rise in the cost of living since that year.
Here, again, one must bear in mind the deductions that can be made to arrive at the disposable income. I am sure that the House will agree that while it is right and proper to give financial support to litigants with worthwhile cases, one must be careful to see that support is not so great as to encourage litigation. The fact that a contribution is required is a deterrent to litigation, and the higher the limit of free legal aid the more is that deterrent removed.
I said that the second ground on which the Advisory Committee based its recommendation was that it would bring into the scope of the scheme 25 million people. The Committee worked on the Blue Book on National Income and Expenditure for 1958, which gave income figures for 1957. The 1959 Blue Book shows that the Government's proposals wi1 cover a figure slightly in excess of 24½ million.
The changes to which I have referred are made in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1. Subsection (3) enables these limits to be varied upwards by regulation, so that the schemes can be further extended, should occasion arise, by regu-

lation. This was recommended by the Advisory Committee. Legislation, not regulations, will be required if it is later desired or intended to restrict the operation of the schemes.
Subsection (4) contains some transitional provisions that are rather complicated—provisions affecting legal aid cases that will be pending when the Bill comes into force. Broadly, the effect is that where the period of computation taken by the National Assistance Board to assess the means of the applicant for assistance is still current when the Bill comes into force, the assisted person's contribution will be assessed in accordance with the new provisions in relation to that part of the period that still remains to run.
The new and important provision with regard to the assessment of contribution is that whereas, under the Acts, an assisted person was liable to be called upon to contribute half the sum by which his disposable income exceeded £156 he will now be required to contribute only one-third of the sum by which his disposable income exceeds £250; and whereas he may now be required to contribute the amount by which his capital exceeds £75, under the Bill he will be required to contribute only the amount by which it exceeds £125.
The House will, therefore, appreciate, I hope, that not only is the limit of disposable income raised very considerably, so that many people who are now excluded can get the benefit of these Acts, not only is the limit of free legal aid substantially increased, but also the extent of the liability of contributions is materially reduced.
I now turn to the other Clauses—

Mr. George Chetwynd: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman's very clear explanation, but would he say whether the assesments of people who have already been awarded legal aid certificates and have not completed their payments will be reviewed automatically—or will they have to apply for a review?

The Attorney-General: The transitional provisions cover the case where the period in which the computation is made is still current. As I have said, the provisions are complicated, and we can discuss them more fully in Committee.
Putting it, if I may, quite shortly, the basis is this. The National Assistance authorities estimate the income for a period of, say, twelve months ahead. On that, an assessment is based. If the computation period extends over a date two months after the passing of the Bill there can be—and, no doubt, will be—a revision. I should not think that it will be necessary to apply, but I can make inquiries about that. There will be a revision so as to ensure that the contribution in respect of the period after the Bill has come into force will be in accordance with the new provision to which I have referred, namely, at the rate of one-third instead of one-half of the income. I hope that I have answered the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Chetwynd: If we are not satisfied we can deal with it later.

The Attorney-General: Yes.
I will now turn to the other Clauses in the Bill. Clause 2 contains provision for regulations to be made varying the percentage of taxed costs to which barristers and solicitors are entitled as remuneration for conducting legally-aided proceedings in the House of Lords, the Supreme Court, the court of session and proceedings in the sheriff court when they are taxed on the higher scale.
As the law now stands, barristers are entitled to 85 per cent. of their fees in such cases and solicitors to 85 per cent. of their profit costs. My noble Friend's Advisory Committee recommended that this percentage should be increased to 90. The Government do not feel able to accept that recommendation at the moment, partly because they are not wholly satisfied that the Committee's recommendation was based on sufficient material to justify its conclusion and partly because, so far as England and Wales are concerned, they think that it would be right to await the effect on solicitors' costs of the new Rules of the Supreme Court which apply to costs incurred after 1st January this year.
The House will note that the power to vary the rate of remuneration is exercisable only so as to increase it. The House will also note that there is no reference to the rate of remuneration for conducting legally-aided proceedings in county courts. That is because the 1949

Act already provides for barristers and solicitors to be paid the full amount allowed on taxation in such proceedings.
Clause 3 relates to the Legal Aid Scheme in Scotland and it gets rid of a defect in the operation of that scheme in Scotland. I understand that in Scotland an application for legal aid has to be made in considerably more detail than is necessary in connection with an application for legal aid in England and Wales. For instance, the statements of witnesses have to be provided and the case prepared almost to the stage of hearing, and that preparatory work is done by a solicitor.
The solicitor's right to payment rests on Section 6 (4) of the Scottish Act, which provides that
a solicitor who is acting for a person receiving legal aid shall be paid for so acting out of the Legal Aid Fund".
Because this provision refers to a solicitor who acts for
a person receiving legal aid",
in the case where the applicant never receives legal aid, either because of his application for legal aid being refused or because he himself refuses to take up the offer, the solicitor cannot be paid out of the Fund.
Clause 3 will enable a solicitor in future to obtain payment out of the Legal Aid Fund where the application for legal aid is approved, but the applicant himself does not accept the offer of aid. It does not authorise payment where the application for aid is refused.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Before passing from Clause 3, would the Attorney-General explain why this applies to Scotland only and why it should not apply equally to England and Wales?

The Attorney-General: Because it is a provision which appears to give difficulty only under the Scottish Act.
Clause 4 is a declaratory provision intended to remove a doubt about the construction of provisions in the Acts which require the payment into the Legal Aid Fund of sums due to it. These provisions might be construed as requiring payment into the Fund by a solicitor to whom, for example, money has been paid in accordance with the terms of a settlement, notwithstanding that money is owed to the solicitor out of the Fund


in respect of the costs incurred by him. This Clause makes it quite clear that the solicitor may set off the money in his hands against the debt owed to him out of the Fund, and it will, therefore, simplify. and to some extent, I trust, cheapen the administration of the Legal Aid Scheme.
Clause 5 is purely formal.
There have been very many suggestions, since the Legal Aid Scheme was brought into force, for improving it. I do not today, however, want to say anything about what is not in the Bill except to deal with our reasons for not including in it a provision for the abolition of the Law Society's Divorce Department, which was one of the economies recommended by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee.
There is, in fact, no necessity to put anything in the Bill to give effect to this recommendation, because the regulation-making power in Section 6 (7) of the 1949 Act is wide enough to enable the Department to be brought to an end by regulation. The Government do not, however, propose that, at any rate for the time being, any such regulation should be made. They propose to watch the effect of the new financial provisions of the Scheme before coming to a final decision about the future of the Divorce Department.
But I should tell the House that under present conditions it is extremely difficult to recruit solicitors into the Department, and the expansion of the Legal Aid work which will result from this Bill may well lead to the solicitors now employed by the Department being promoted to other positions within the scheme. It is, therefore, not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Department will come to an end within a comparatively short time through lack of staff.
I have now explained what the Bill seeks to do and its impact on the Legal Aid Schemes. I felt that it was necessary to give the reasons why we do not feel able to accept the recommendations of the Advisory Committee as to the limits of disposable income which it proposed. We have, I think, accepted nearly all, if not all, its other recommendations in their last Report.
This is, I submit, a very useful Bill. It will enable help to be given to those who are sued and can ill afford the expense of litigation. It will enable help to be given to those who sue in respect of injuries or damage they have suffered and who cannot afford litigation. It reduces the burden of contributions made by assisted persons. It is a beneficial Bill and, having been closely associated with this social service since its inception, I am very glad today to be able to commend it to the House.

4.18 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: It is a pleasure to be able to welcome a Bill which is brought forward from the other side of the House. I am happy that the Attorney-General has had the opportunity of introducing this Bill, knowing, as I do, the interest which he has taken in this matter ever since the days of the Rushcliffe Report.
The Legal Aid Act, of course, was a new departure in legislation. When we passed that Act in 1949 it was the first time that we had on the Statute Book any attempt to do the work which had hitherto been left largely to voluntary societies and purely gratuitous work on the part of the legal profession. Its purpose was to prevent the denial of justice to those who could not afford it, to remove from the law and the administration of justice in this country the well-known gibe that justice was open to everyone in the same way as was the Ritz.
There was only one part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech to which I took some exception. I refer to his complaint that the Labour Government did not bring in the whole of the Act at the same time.

The Attorney-General: I expressly refrained from criticising. I said that it was, no doubt, inevitable.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I will put it in this way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that complicated difficulties were created because the whole Act had not been brought in at the same time. He recognised the inevitable economic stringencies of the time, but he said that there had been these complications.
In that case, why have not the Conservative Government long since brought


into operation all the rest of the Act? For five years, from 1951 to 1956, they did nothing at all about it. Since then, they have gradually extended and put into operation piecemeal provisions which had not been put into operation in 1949, and, of course, every single one of those extensions has been welcomed on this side of the House. We have pressed particularly, time and time again, for the improvement which this Bill, at last, brings in.
The Act has had its teething troubles. There have been criticisms, some of them severe. There are still difficulties in the administration of the Legal Aid Scheme. We are still learning as we go along about the administration of it. But nobody today suggests that we should go back upon the principle of the legislation which the Labour Government introduced in 1949. All parties are united in applying that principle.
There are, each year, about 40,000 applications under the Act and about 20,000 cases of people receiving legal aid. Of those, roughly nine out of ten are successful in obtaining relief of one kind or another, either successful litigation or by compromise in the course of litigation. Therefore, as a result of the Act, about 18,000 people a year are helped in obtaining justice which they might otherwise be denied.
The cost is borne partly by the State and partly otherwise, through contributions made, and so forth. About half the cost is borne by the State. I will read what is said in the eighth Report of the Law Society on the Operation and Finance of Part I of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. There is a detailed statement on the finances of the scheme, and the comment made is:
The statement shows clearly that the cost of the Legal Aid Scheme is by no means borne entirely by public funds. In fact, the Exchequer grant covers only about 50 per cent. of the cost, the remainder of which is borne by the contributions made by assisted persons, by costs recovered on their behalf, and by the enforcement of charges on property recovered or preserved. It may fairly be added that the cost to the State and to assisted persons is also reduced by solicitors and counsel accepting a reduction of 15 per cent. in their fees and charges in litigation and a nominal fee for serving on area and local committees".
I shall not here enter into the question of solicitors' and counsel's charges and

what the amount should be. It does not arise on this Bill. The Bill provides that it shall be possible to increase those charges by regulation subject to negative resolution. The extent to which they should be raised would obviously be a matter to be considered and debated by the House when the regulation is brought forward. I cannot understand why the regulation should be limited only to increasing the charges. After the charges had been increased, for one reason or another it might be desirable to decrease them. I do not see why power should not be taken either way. The method of dealing with it by negative resolution seems wholly admirable.
The Legal Aid Scheme, of course, has been a triumphant success. I wish to acknowledge here the part which the whole legal profession, to which I am proud to belong—a dangerous admission to make in this House—has played in administering the Legal Aid Scheme. It ought to be recognised that solicitors and counsel are coming forward more and more each year to take part, and it is possible—indeed, this is the practice —for legally aided persons to have counsel and solicitors appropriate for the particular case in exactly the same way as people who are not assisted do.
There are still defects within the scope of its administration. There is, of course, the defect which has been outstanding for some years and which the Bill is designed to remedy, the defect caused by the rise in the cost of living and the fall in the value of money. The result of the fall in the value of money since 1949 has been that the Act for some years has failed to give the help it was intended to give. Inflation has, to a considerable extent, defeated the purpose of the scheme. The Act was designed to prevent the denial of justice to those who could not afford it. The line was drawn, roughly, at the man with £10 a week. He was outside the Act if his disposable income was £420 a year, equivalent, roughly, to a gross income of £520, or if his capital was £500 or more. If a litigant had £10 a week, he had to pay what he could afford; all his capital, if he had capital, over £75—a fairly stringent provision—and half the amount by which his income exceeded in the year £156.
I recognise at once the point made by the Attorney-General, that the Rushcliffe


Report was based on 1945 values, and it is perfectly fair to say that prices went up between 1945 and 1949. I acknowledge, also, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman subscribed to the Rushcliffe Report. I have heard it said in the House that prices have roughly doubled since 1945. Taking rough figures for the sake of argument, let us assume that prices have doubled since 1945. The £10 a week man is now £5 a week man in terms of 1945 values. The result is that even those who are on the borders of destitution—this is, in fact, so in practice—have been excluded from the advantages of the scheme.
In the seventh Report on the operation of the scheme, certain figures were given to illustrate how it had been working. The case was quoted of a wife separated from her husband who had a gross income of £411 or about £8 a week, and a disposable income calculated at £4 a week. Her rent was 13s. 9d. a week, and she had five children under ten years of age. Her contribution under the scheme was £28.
Of course, owing to the fall in the value of money, it has become quite impossible for many people who were intended to do so and who came within the four corners of the scheme to benefit from it because of the amount of contribution exacted. The result is that over the years applications for the benefits of the scheme have fallen. The number of cases in which persons have been refused aid because they could not afford to pay the contribution required under the scheme have increased in number. The amount in contributions which have been exacted under the scheme have increased. The figures given by the Advisory Committee in its Report show this perfectly clearly.
Applications have fallen every year except last year, when the advantages of the scheme were extended to the county courts. This year, the number of applications has fallen by 11 per cent. They have fallen by over 30 per cent. over the period in which the scheme has been in operation. Of the number of people who have applied the percentage of those who have not had aid because they could not afford to pay the contributions—this is the reason given in the Report—has increased year by year. In 1950, the number was 3·6 per cent.; in 1955, 11 per cent.; in 1956, 14·6 per cent.; in

1957–58, 16·7 per cent., and that is the last figure with which we have been supplied. Take the number of cases of contributions of over £100. The percentage of these has gone up year by year—1950, 1 per cent.; 1955–56, 12 per cent.; 1956–57, 13 per cent.; and 1957–58, 14 per cent.
As I have said, there are roughly 40,000 applications for aid, and probably, as far as I can work it out—and this seems a fairly conservative estimate; I have put it appreciably lower than the estimate made in the House last year—13,000 people are prevented by the fall in the value of money from taking advantage of the scheme. If nine-tenths of the cases are successful, about 12,000 people are denied justice, either because the fall in the value of money means that they cannot afford to pay the contributions, or that they do not come within the scheme at all.
The Bill makes a very substantial contribution towards improving the present position, which is scandalous. To have allowed the scheme to continue year after year, without bringing in a measure of this kind, is something of which the Government cannot be proud, but now that they have done so they have brought forward their proposals in a way which we welcome. Limits have gone up substantially, roughly, as far as I can make out, restoring the 1949 position. We should have liked to see something rather better, because we are not in the stringent position of 1949.
We would have preferred the Attorney-General to have prevailed, as I am sure he has tried to prevail with his colleagues, to restore the reality of the Rushcliffe recommendations in 1945. We should, therefore, have liked the Government to go back, as we can afford to go back, to the Rushcliffe recommendations rather than to the position which prevailed when the 1949 Act was passed. However, we are going back to the 1949 Act position, and that we welcome.
We also welcome the provision for raising the limits by regulation. This is obviously a sensible thing to do. If we are to have, as we have had over recent years, continuing inflation, it is certainly most advisable to have a comparatively quick method of dealing with the problem of raising the limits. We also welcome the substantial advantage.


to which the Attorney-General referred, of the maximum amount of contribution from the disposable income being reduced from a half to one-third.
What I do not understand—perhaps I may have missed something here—is why the £500 capital limit has been retained. The position at the moment, generally speaking, is that a person with £500 capital cannot have the advantage of the scheme, unless there are special reasons. I believe that that point is not dealt with in the Bill, and this I cannot understand.

The Attorney-General: The £500 capital is not an absolute bar. It is subject to the qualifications in the 1949 Act which I mentioned. The Advisory Committee recommended that that figure should be left unchanged, and we accepted its recommendation. It is only a bar, speaking from memory of the provisions, if it is clear that a man could afford to defend the litigation himself. It is not a complete bar.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I appreciate that. The words are:
Provided that a person may be refused legal aid if he has a disposable capital of more than five hundred pounds and it appears that he can afford to proceed without legal aid".
If the scheme is operated in such a way that the £500 limit is ignored altogether, I can understand the point of the Attorney-General, but the £500 is there, presumably, to have an effect. If it has an effect, I cannot understand why it should not be modified by increasing the £500 limit in the same way as everything else is increased. If it is completely ignored in administration, I understand the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, short of that, I do not understand it.

The Attorney-General: It was the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, which went into all this with great care, that that figure should not be altered in its last Report when it recommended the changes to which I referred.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I do not know whether the Attorney-General is referring to the eighth Report, or whether he has a report which is not available to us. In any case, it is a point which causes us some difficulty

and which we shall certainly wish to pursue.
So much for the Government's proposals. The Attorney-General dealt with other matters to which I should like briefly to refer.

The Attorney-General: The Report to which I have referred is that of the Advisory Committee upon the Financial Provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, and the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations Cmnd. 918.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We do not consider the position with regard to the £500 limit satisfactory.
The Attorney-General referred to matters outside the scope of the Bill, but, nevertheless, within the scope of the discussion on Second Reading. He referred to the National Assistance scales. I appreciate that the Government have improved the scales for assessing disposable income. For years it has been a matter of complaint that, while the National Assistance scales, upon which the scales for assessing disposable income were based, have been improved, the scales under the Legal Aid Act have not been improved. That has now been done and we very much welcome it, but I have been unable to find out how far these are now in line with the National Assistance scales.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the point which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), when this matter was last discussed by the House, that these legal aid scales in assessing disposable income should be identical with the National Assistance scales and should automatically increase and vary in accordance with the variations in those scales. I do not know why that should not be done. Perhaps we may have some comments from the Solicitor-General, in winding up the debate, on this aspect of legal aid administration.
As to the legal advice scheme, we have not, most unfortunately, had the tenth Report which would cover information about its operation. The Report is due to come out very shortly and it is unfortunate that we are having this debate just before its publication. It would have been more helpful if we had had the Report first.

Mr. Graham Page: For the purposes of the record, it is the ninth Report.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg the House's pardon. It is the ninth. It was the eighth Report which was last published.
I do not know whether the Attorney-General has the information. I wonder whether he could give us some estimate of the cost of the scheme and its effect on litigation. It is thought that the advice scheme may reduce the cost of operating the rest of the scheme. We should be grateful for some information about the net saving of the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme. According to the last Report, for 1956–57, the total grant in aid was roughly £1,400,000. I do not know whether more recent information is available. If there is, it would be helpful if we could have some indication of the cost in later years.
Lastly, there are matters which are still outstanding under the Legal Aid and Advice Act. Could we be told when the whole of the Act will be effectively in operation? Can the Solicitor-General tell us something about the application of the Act to tribunals? We realise that tribunals do not come within the Act itself, but there are tribunals to which it might be helpful to extend it. I do not know what the Government intend to do about that, but we should be grateful for some observations about it.
The Bill is one which we very much welcome. It is a Bill for which we have pressed for a considerable time. It is long overdue, but it is none the less welcome for the fact that at last it has appeared, and we are grateful to the Attorney-General for the part which I am sure he has personally played in bringing the Bill before the House.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. John Hobson: I, also, should like to sing a little song of praise and welcome to this Bill and to congratulate both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General on the part they have played in introducing this extraordinarily useful and beneficial Measure.
The Bill is the climax of a long series of activities which, since 1954, have brought into operation large numbers of the provisions of the Legal Aid and

Advice Act. It is quite plain now that the Government have been proceeding upon a plan by which they would gradually extend the Legal Aid Scheme to the various courts and, having done that, would proceed to make it available as widely as possible. While it may be true that in this House it is dangerous to be a lawyer, and while I know that every sensible person in the country would wish to dissuade every form of litigation, nevertheless, it remains true that it is a vital interest to us all that those who have to litigate should be able to do so and should not be kept from the doors of the Courts of Justice by lack of funds.
This Measure will extend the availability of legal aid very widely indeed. I calculate on the figure, given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, of 24½ million persons to whom it will apply, that that represents approximately 94 per cent. of the total personal incomes of the country. The availability of legal aid is based upon the income of the family. The basis of income groups are family income groups, of which there are at present about 26 million in the country. For 24½ million of these, legal aid will now be available. It is a measure of the widespread benefits which this scheme will bring that so many people in the country, if they need legal aid, can now have it.
I also welcome two other things about the scheme. I welcome, first, that the lower limits for free legal aid are being raised so that help from public funds is concentrated upon those who need it most. That I regard as a good, sound Conservative principle. Secondly, I welcome the fact that the amount of contribution that has to be made out of income is reduced and scaled down.
The third result of the Bill is that the upper limit within which legal aid is available has been raised. That does not cost the Exchequer very much, if anything, because the contributions from those in the upper-income groups will more than likely cover the whole of the costs that are likely to fall upon public funds. Nevertheless, it is of great importance that people of moderate means should not be prevented from undertaking heavy litigation by reason of financial stringency. It is just as difficult for a man of moderate means to


undertake heavy litigation against powerful corporations or the State as it is for impecunious people to embark upon small litigation which is beyond their means.
One of the results of raising the higher limits for legal aid is that those of moderate means can litigate on hire-purchase. They make contributions, fairly scaled to their capacity to pay. They can make them over a period. They know that, however heavy and expensive the litigation may become, their liability to the fund is limited. They know, also, that their liability to costs, should they lose, will also probably be limited to the amount which they can afford to pay.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said he thought that only about 50 per cent. of the cost of legal aid fell upon the State, but from my reading of the figures I would have assumed that it was a very much lower percentage, when one takes into account the whole amount that goes into the pool by way of recovery of contributions and of damages and of costs from opponents. But whatever the right figure of the percentage from public funds may be, the fact remains that this is an astonishingly cheap scheme.
We have not yet been told the total cost to the State after all these provisions have been brought into operation. I hope that the Solicitor-General will tell us the estimated total cost of the scheme when all the provisions have been brought into operation. At a rough estimate I should imagine that it is not far from £2 million, though it may be a little more or a little less.
The total disbursements on litigation in some years amount to around £8 million, but they are adjusted by the assets which will be brought into the scheme. However, even if the figure is £2 million, £3 million or £4 million, it is infinitesimal compared with the cost of our other welfare schemes, such as the National Health Service, National Insurance and what is spent upon education. These require amounts from the Exchequer between two hundred to four hundred times greater than the Legal Aid Scheme requires from the public purse. Yet justice and its proper administration is just as important for the

democratic State as are the benefits we get from the other schemes under the Welfare State.
While I give a broad and general and heartfelt welcome to the Bill, there are one or two minor matters which I must raise. They do not detract in any way from my general approval of the Bill, but I ask my right hon. and learned Friends to consider them. The first is the question of the capital limit of £500. It is true that this limit is to be applied only if it appears that the applicant can afford to proceed without legal aid, but I think that it will be found, in practice, that it is an actual limit which most area committees in practice apply.
It is a curious figure, whose origin has never been disclosed. Certainly, the Rushcliffe Committee gave no reason for arriving at a figure of £500 as the capital limit. The Advisory Committee which considered the matter, recommended, in its report of last June, that there should be no change in the provision as to capital. It did not give any reasons for its conclusion. It did not investigate the matter or the operation of this limit. It gave no reason for its finding. The figure of £500, both in its inception and in its recent consideration, seams to have been one which has not provoked any discussion and about which nobody has given any reasons.
I would like to tell the House of a case in which I was concerned in which a gentleman was killed under an operation in a hospital. The only asset he left was a policy of life insurance for £800. He left a widow with two young boys, she having no income of any description. The local area committee said that because of the asset of £800 which was hers she must litigate at her own expense and was to be excluded from legal aid. So she had to determine whether to pledge the whole of the remaining assets of that family to undertake an action against the Medical Defence Union and the regional hospital board, the latter, of course, being supported by State funds.
There are many elderly widows in my constituency who have small savings and almost no income and who are equally affected. What never seems to have been considered is the relationship between capital and income. It is true that at present a person who is at the limit of £700 would have to contribute


£150 out of his income, and no doubt if he had £500 disposable capital in addition he could easily afford to contribute the £375 of it which is in excess of the bottom £125.
Such a person would be contributing then a total figure to the fund of about £375. It might well be that he could afford it and there is no reason why, if he had more capital, he should not be excluded from legal aid. However, he is in a very different position from the person who has £600 or £700 disposable capital and almost no income at all Such people are excluded from National Assistance and, in practice, they are normally excluded from the benefits of legal aid.
If one takes the £500 capital figure as at May, 1945, when the Rushcliffe Committee reported, its present equivalent value on a rise of 78·5 per cent. in prices would make it equivalent now to £890. I hope, therefore, that this matter may be reconsidered, and that, in Committee, it may be possible to insert a figure of £700 or £800 into the Bill as the limit of capital, coupled if necessary with a provision that if there is income in addition a person who, under the scheme, would have to make a contribution of over, say, £250 might be excluded.
There is another matter on the subject of capital, and that is the fact that the whole of the capital beyond £125 has to be contributed. For a widow with a small income that is difficult. It is also difficult for a person whose disposable capital is not in a liquid form, who has it locked up in a business or who is employing it in some way in which it cannot readily be made available, and who yet has to produce the cash for his contribution. And yet if the litigation is successful, the other side will pay the costs and he will get all his contribution back again. He will have been put to the general inconvenience of making his capital liquid, of handing it over to the Legal Aid Fund, and of then getting it back, having, in the meantime, been placed in considerable difficulty.
I have always thought that a solution of this difficulty might be found in persons making different contributions. One would be made initially, before it is known whether or not the litigation is to be successful. A subsequent or supplementary assessment could be made later

upon the failure of the litigation. Litigants would have to pay a higher percentage of their income and a higher percentage of their capital should their litigation fail.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: A sort of statutory champerty?

Mr. Hobson: No, I think not.
My idea is that the pressures upon those involved in litigation should be equal. One of the difficulties at present is that the person who has been assessed for a contribution, particularly if it is nil, has as it were put down his stake, and there is not the slightest pressure upon him to settle the litigation. He does not feel under any need to do so; whereas the opponent, who is unassisted, is under the double pressure of being at the risk of losing the whole action and also of being at the risk of having to pay the whole of his own costs even though he wins.
If, however, an assisted person, even though one with a nil contribution, had to pay something, however small, should his litigation be unsuccessful, he would, in those circumstances, have some pressure upon him, as does the ordinary litigant, to terminate his action upon reasonable terms.
That brings me to the other subject which, I hope, it may be possible to consider, if not under this Bill, then in the very near future. That is the question of the successful unassisted litigant. I hope that it may be possible in the near future to introduce a proposal which will go at least as far as this: that where a court finds that there has been individual and particular hardship upon a successful unassisted litigant by reason of an action being brought against him by an assisted person, the court will have power to order that the Legal Aid Fund should pay the whole or some proportion of that person's costs.
I am sure the eventual object should be that the full costs of all successful unassisted litigants should be paid out of the Legal Aid Fund. I see from the latest Report of the Advisory Committee that that Committee estimates the total cost of doing the latter, namely, contributing 100 per cent., at a figure of only £227,000—£¼ million to pay the whole of the costs of all successful unassisted litigants.
It is an ancient provision of the law of maintenance that citizens should not be harried by litigation in the courts of justice by persons not concerned with the litigation. It has always been the rule that the law would not stop the litigation, but that if the action went through and a person suffered damage by the officious intermeddling of another that other should pay the damage suffered.
The Legal Aid Scheme, of course, departed from that principle. Nevertheless, it is surely only fair that those who provide the sinews of an unsuccessful war should make good the damage to those who have suffered thereby. There have in the experience of everybody who has practised in the courts been cases of very great hardship indeed to defendants who have had to defend an action against a legally-assisted plaintiff, who have defended successfully and who have been left to pay the whole of their own costs of the action.
The trouble is that this may happen to a person only just outside the limits of legal aid. The plantiff may be just inside the limits of legal aid whereas the unassisted person is just outside them. The consequences for the two are so very different that it must strike one that that is imposing an injustice upon the person who is left to pay the whole of his own costs.
The right of the successful unassisted litigant to recover any costs depends at present entirely upon the position of the assisted opponent. It does not seem right that that should be the basis on which his costs should be assessed. I ask the Government to consider, at any rate as a first step, that the court should be given a discretion in cases of individual hardship to order the Legal Aid Fund to pay the whole or part of his costs.
In a very large number of these cases the defendant is represented by an insurance company, others are represented or supported by trade unions and many others have funds available to them. The total cost of providing for costs in cases of hardship only would be really very small indeed, especially when one realises that to pay 100 per cent. of the costs of unassisted litigants would cost only £¼ million.
Being a lawyer myself I had better follow the example of previous speakers and walk delicately on the subject of the 15 per cent. We all seem to be avoiding that subject, and perhaps it is better at this stage not to go into it at all except to draw a short contrast with the medical profession and to remind the House that, of course, other professions which operate welfare schemes with funds provided by the State do not give any discount, charity or gift to those receiving the benefits of the scheme.
It is true, of course, that as far as lawyers, both solicitors and counsel, are concerned, they have the benefit at any rate of having a client behind them who will pay the costs or, at least, of having a client whose costs will be paid for him. That is a very great benefit indeed.
I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was correct in saying that the Bill provided only that we could raise the remuneration and could not subsequently lower it if we so wished. Clause 2 says that the words to be inserted after "eighty-five per cent." are:
or such larger percentage as may be prescribed.
It would, therefore, be possible to put up the percentage to 95 per cent. and then to put it down to 90 per cent. or to any other percentage, but it must remain, I suppose, between 85 per cent. and 100 per cent., because the prospects of lawyers being paid more than 100 per cent. are, I imagine, remote.
The only other small point I would ask my right hon. and learned Friends to consider is the question of the Privy Council. The Privy Council was never provided for in the Act because it was considered that most litigation would be coming from places overseas and was not the concern of taxpayers in this country. But the fact remains that very great hardship is caused to a small number of specialists, both members of the Bar and solicitors, who appear for appellants before the Privy Council who now appeal in forma pauperis.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: This equally applies to cases going to the House of Lords. There is equally no provision there. There is, of course, provision for appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Hobson: I think that the Act has been brought into operation in the House of Lords.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Not in cases of forma pauperis.

Mr. Hobson: I think it has, but if my hon. Friend is correct in saying that there is no legal aid in the House of Lords, then what I am saying must apply equally there. But whether the House of Lords is the same as the Privy Council or not, at any rate as far as the Privy Council is concerned the burden falls upon a very small number of specialists. It would not cost very much to remedy this situation.
These specialists, particularly the solicitors, are actually out of pocket owing to the printing costs which they incur and the cables which they have to send in order, very often, to appear in murder cases for persons who have no means at all and who are often under sentence of death. There is very great urgency in these cases and for both solicitors and counsel, apart from the disbursements which they pay out of their own pockets, there is, of course, a very heavy burden of responsibility and work in preparing the appeal, in drafting the petitions for leave to appeal and the substantive petitions and in attending and conducting the hearing before the Privy Council.
I am sure that everyone in the House will regard the functions of the Privy Council in administering the law throughout the Commonwealth, as far as that jurisdiction now remains, as of great importance. Lord Denning has suggested that it should go on assize in Africa, and I am sure that everyone is interested in seeing that appeals are conducted in the best possible manner in the Privy Council. I think that at the moment they are so conducted, but it causes great hardship to a very few and it would not cost a great deal to give them some remuneration beyond what they now get when an appellant appears in forma pauperis.
I make these suggestions only with the desire, which I am sure everyone in the House also feels, of improving the Legal Aid Scheme. I am sure that all lawyers and all those who have had the privilege either of administering or assisting in operating the Legal Aid Act know full well the great benefit that it confers on

the people of this country. It is one of the foundations upon which our free and democratic way of life can be carried on. It helps us to see that everyone in this country is equal and free before the law.
It is for that reason that I am particularly glad to welcome the Bill because it extends, improves and maintains those provisions. I hope that, subject to the few matters which I have raised, the House will give the Bill a rapid passage into law.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I should like to support almost every suggestion which has just fallen from the lips of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) who sits on the other side of the House. This is a rather rare contingency, at least within the precincts of this Chamber, although, happily, we are in agreement elsewhere on a number of matters.
It was clearly quite contrary to the principle and spirit of the main Measure that the scale of contributions should be so high that just claims were being defeated for that reason, and it was difficult to resist properly claims which very often were without foundation. This Measure will go a good deal of the way to end a situation which is clearly unsatisfactory.
One of the controversial matters which the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned is his suggestion that the successful defendant should recover his costs out of the Legal Aid Fund. Subject to the condition which the hon. and learned Gentleman added, that it should be in the discretion of the court whether that should be done or not, I feel that the time has indeed arrived when serious consideration should be given to that proposal, because when one appears in these cases it is most unhappy to feel the burning sense of injustice of the successful defendant who just happens to be the wrong side of the line from the point of view of legal aid. I hope that that matter will be considered as a matter of urgency.
I have one or two practical suggestions to make which, I am sure, will receive consideration. I express my regret that in this Bill steps have not been taken to implement Section 23 of


the 1949 Act relating to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The jurisdiction of that court is a vital part of the administration of our justice, and I hope that implementation of the Section relating to it will receive early consideration. When that consideration is given, I hope also that provision will be made to ensure that it is the counsel who conducted the case at the trial who appears in the Court of Criminal Appeal. At present, generally speaking, it is aimed to achieve that result, but from time to time the situation does arise where it is not the trial counsel who argues the case before the Court of Criminal Appeal, but somebody else, nominated, perhaps, from necessity—I do not know why—by the Court of Criminal Appeal itself. It is not a satisfactory arrangement—unless, of course, it be that the appellant himself has chosen to shed his counsel. That is a contingency which, I am glad to say, only very rarely arises, at least in my experience on the Wales and Chester Circuit.
Quite apart from that matter, I also invite the Solicitor-General to give consideration to reducing the cumbrousness of legal aid in the county court. At present, even with a very small claim in the county court, the poor man's court, as it has been called, the whole paraphernalia of certification, means test, inquiry and investigation has to take place. It does seem absurd that in some cases, where the cost cannot possibly exceed £50, there should be all this machinery with the means test and certification and the consequential considerable wasting of time and delay, which may cause hardship in the kind of case which has to be considered in that court.
I am wondering whether consideration could be given to amending the present arrangements on some such lines as these, that where an applicant's solicitor certifies that the probable cost of a county court action is less than, say, £50, the secretary of the legal aid area shall, with the chairman's authority, be entitled to issue a legal aid certificate without the necessity of the certifying committee of three solicitors and one barrister sitting for the purpose of issuing the certificate.
As the next step, in the event of that certification by the applicant's solicitor

and of the solicitor certifying that he himself has made reasonable inquiries to satisfy himself that the applicant's declaration of means is correct, then the secretary of the area committee might be given authority himself to make the assessment of the applicant's financial contribution, if any, without the necessity of any oral examination of the applicant's means.
If it were thought that that would be leaving too much to the responsibility of solicitors, or—perish the thought—if it were thought that all solicitors could not be so entrusted with the handling of public funds, it might be possible to make a provision to enable the National Assistance Board to carry out a spot check of these—I may call them—less than £50 declarations by visiting the homes of a proportion of the applicants and checking their means, so that it would be known that the system was subject to that safeguard and that degree of supervision. That check could take place after an interval of time, and it would not delay the hearing of the case in the meantime in the county court.
My experience is—and I have been told this by some of my friends who are experienced in the county courts—that the present cumbersome arrangements are excessive and ought to be avoidable, and I hope that this practical suggestion I have made will receive attention and consideration in due course.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: During the years that this Legal Aid Scheme has been in operation it has, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said, been an outstanding success. He also used in connection with it the word "defects". I should not have said that they were defects so much as shortcomings, because within the field in which it has been intended to operate it has operated successfully; but there have been, I would say, three major shortcomings in the extent of the operation of the scheme.
One of those shortcomings is being remedied by this Bill. During these years the value of money has decreased, with the result that the limits of capital and income set in the 1949 Act are now excluding those people whom the original scheme intended to benefit. I think the


figures put into this Bill are about right in restoring the intentions of the original scheme. I do not wish to dwell at any length on that matter because it has been dealt with already by right hon. and hon. and learned Members.
The second shortcoming which has appeared in the operation of the scheme is in the extent of it to the courts, or rather the restriction of it to certain of the courts only. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) mentioned the Privy Council. I should declare an interest at once, as being one of the small handful whom he mentioned who practise in the Privy Council and who, on a rota, undertake cases from overseas in forma pauperis.
I shall not add to that except in this way, that the House has recently been giving more jurisdiction to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of appellants from professional disciplinary bodies. I think that these are the sort of cases in which legal aid will be necessary. For example, there will be the professional man who has for some reason been debarred by his disciplinary committee from exercising his profession. He may have spent all his savings in fighting the case before that committee. He will be out of work, out of earnings, by reason of having being debarred from his profession. He is just the sort of person who, if the merits of his case warrant it, should have assistance in taking it before the Privy Council, as we have been giving him a right to do by recent legislation passing through this House.
It has also been mentioned that the scheme does not apply to quasi-judicial tribunals. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friends will give this point very careful consideration because the person who gets caught up in that sort of case—that is to say, one before a quasi-judicial tribunal—is very often not at fault himself in that it is not through any act or conduct on his part that he finds himself entangled in the web. It is frequently by reason of some administrative or executive act, and he fears that he may be ruined unless he resists it. He then has to go before one of these tribunals, which is to him no different from a court of law. We ought to consider extending the scheme to such a man.
I feel, too, that we must some time give consideration to extending it to arbitration. A layman thinks perhaps of arbitration as being only between two large commercial firms, but even a man of the smallest means may become involved. If he has signed a tenancy agreement with an arbitration clause about the abatement of rent in the case of fire, or if he has signed a service agreement or an agreement for employment, which often contain arbitration clauses, he has by signing the agreement deprived himself of any benefit from the legal aid system because he has deprived himself of resort to the courts. We ought to consider extending the scheme to that sort of case.
The third shortcoming that I wish to mention—it has already been mentioned from both sides of the House—is the lack of provision for the costs of the opponent of an unsuccessful assisted person to be paid out of public funds. The results of this have in some cases been scandalous and they have fallen very harshly on the successful litigant. Of course, before a legal aid certificate is granted each case is carefully examined by a legal aid committee, but it is not the duty of that committee to say, "This man might not be successful". What it has to consider is whether the applicant has, in its opinion, a prima facie case. Some of the applicants to whom a certificate has been granted are bound to be unsuccessful in the final result. Consequently, as the legal aid scheme now stands, their successful opponents are left to pay what are sometimes extremely large sums in costs.
Not many assisted persons are unsuccessful, I am glad to say. The percentage shown in the 1957–58 Report was only nine. Nevertheless, that means that there were as many as 1,731 cases in which judgment was given against the assisted person without costs.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Does not that figure include undefended divorces, where the petition is almost bound to be successful?

Mr. Page: I understand not. I believe that I am quoting figures which exclude divorce cases, but I stand to be corrected on that.
Apart from the cases in which judgment was given against assisted persons without costs, about 10 per cent. of the cases were settled. From experience


one knows that in many cases the unassisted litigant settles the case rather than face the further costs.
It is unfortunate that we are having this debate today before the publication of the Ninth Report of the Law Society on the operation and finance of Part I of the Act. I understood that the Report would be available with the comments of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee before today. It is important to the point which I have been making about the costs of a successful opponent of an assisted person, and as the Report is already before the Lord Chancellor, I see no harm in my disclosing that there is advice in that Report from the Law Society that the criticisms about this matter in the Press and in the House are well founded and that, in the view of the Law Society, provision should be made accordingly for the payment of the costs of the successful opponent out of public funds.
Certain palliatives have been suggested to relieve the difficult position in which the successful litigant finds himself. It has been suggested, for example, that in appeals the assisted person should not be allowed to appeal unless he has special leave to do so from the court of first instance or from the court of appeal. That would be going against the fundamental basis of the legal aid system, which is that the assisted person should be treated in exactly the same way as any other litigant. Also, it would be impracticable because in practice one needs to consider the transcript of the judgment in order to advise whether an appeal should be taken. Also, it would apply only to appeals and not to cases of first instance. I think that perhaps that suggestion does not go far enough.
A further suggestion to meet this difficulty is that all proposals for settlements should be reported to the legal aid committee. That can be done now. If a solicitor acting for an assisted person wonders whether he should proceed with the case in case of an offer of settlement which he has received, he can go to the committee and ask for advice. The solicitor acting for the litigant who makes the offer can also report it to the committee. That can all be done now, but I do not think that making it compulsory would be at all practical. After

all, offers of settlement vary from day to day and even from hour to hour during negotiations.
This matter could perhaps be provided for by setting up a fund for the purpose to which would be allotted £5 out of the contribution of each assisted person. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has said that to pay in full the costs of successful opponents of assisted persons would cost less than £250,000 per year. I believe that a fund made up of £5 per head of the assisted persons would build up into a substantial figure out of which at least a contribution could be made towards the costs of successful opponents of assisted persons. I agree entirely with the proviso which was put forward by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that this would apply only if the court awarded costs to the successful opponent.
However, I am sure that, whether it be done by means of a fund such as I have suggested or in any other way, we have to meet this position, and I regret that it has not been met in the Bill. It is not the same position as the payment of costs to an acquitted person in a criminal case. There is an argument against that, an argument on the ground that it might deter the police in the course of their public duties.
Here it is quite different, and we are using public funds to subsidise an individual in his litigation—quite rightly so. If the public backs the wrong horse, then it ought to take the responsibility and it ought to pay out of public funds the costs of the successful opponent of the assisted person and prevent the very extreme hardship which has occurred in a number of cases. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friends will give that point very careful consideration.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I join in welcoming the Bill, which will remove some of the financial inhibitions of those who have the right to proceed to the courts, but there are certain features attendant on it which should be brought to the attention of the House.
I listened with considerable interest to the reasons given by the Attorney-General as to why the recommendation of the Advisory Committee for winding


up the Law Society's Divorce Department is not immediately to be adopted. The existence of this department is, of course, quite contrary to the fundamental and important rule of the Legal Aid Scheme, that an assisted litigant is just as entitled to select his own solicitor as is any non-legally aided person. It is important that a woman who may be a charlady who is brutally beaten by her husband should have the same rights to select her solicitor in a divorce case as any duchess has when her duke goes off with a chorus girl.
I do not regard it as satisfactory that we should be told that, by administrative action, the department is ultimately to be wound up. There is an important point of principle involved and the necessary steps should be taken immediately to wind up the department.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it would be by regulation. "Administrative action" may give the sense of there not being Parliamentary intervention.

Mr. Abse: I am speaking as a Parliamentarian and not as a lawyer. When I say "administrative action", I gather that it is intended ultimately to integrate the department into other departments of the Law Society. However, I think that it is important, rather than merely wind up a department which has undoubtedly done useful work, that some consideration should be given to how it could be employed for some other purpose within the existing scheme.
Now that we are extending legal aid to the extent proposed, it is time to be considering how we can economise. We are creating a new social service and it is important that we should consider how cheaply we can administer what is and undoubtedly will be a great scheme. Every solicitor knows full well that when his case is complete and taxation is sought, a difficulty arises, for if the solicitor has acted for a legally-aided plaintiff and wishes to enforce the costs against the defendant, in innumerable cases it is found that solicitors' offices are not properly equipped for the task. Shortage of staff, pressure of current work and high overheads all mean that

to enforce and collect costs, which are usually paid upon a monthly basis, is a difficult task. It requires a large-scale, specialised, debt-collecting department.
It has been well recognised by large organisations engaged in mail order business or hire-purchase that in order to collect one's money, it is necessary to set up a separate department and to have a solicitor connected with it, by retention or actually in a legal department dealing specifically with that type of work. I am sure that, with the best will in the world, solicitors are not at the moment collecting costs as effectively as they might, costs which could go into the Legal Aid Fund, because they simply lack the machinery within their own offices for that type of work. It should be centralised and done on a large scale.
Since the continued existence of the Divorce Department is undoubtedly an irritant to all solicitors, because it offends the fundamental principle of the Legal Aid Scheme, I suggest that this department should be metamorphised into a debt-collecting agency. It is already well-equipped for and has some knowledge of that type of work, as it must through collecting its own costs from defendants against whom an order has been made.
Equally, it could obviously do the work of the Law Society, which is frequently compelled to commence proceedings against assisted persons who have failed to maintain their contributions. I hope that some thought will be given to the possibility of absorbing into such an agency those people who have been in that department for so long and who constitute a problem at the moment.
Since we are considering economies and how we can ensure that the costs of this scheme will be as low as possible, I believe there is an obligation on the legal professions so to order and conduct their work that it is efficient and economical. I believe that one should ask the professions to consider whether there are not means whereby the costs of these schemes could be reduced. Some examples spring to mind immediately.
It is time that solicitors had the right of audience before commissioners in divorce cases. It seems to me to be an unnecessarily heavy burden on the Legal Aid Fund that in simple, undefended divorce cases it is necessary for both a


solicitor and a barrister to be in attendance. It is quite wrong that that should be so when solicitors conduct matrimonial proceedings before magistrates, or before a stipendiary magistrate, often over two or three days, and obtain an adjudication upon the basis of which the divorce ultimately takes place. Such undefended divorces are simple and almost mechanical procedures and it seems unnecessary to have a solicitor and a barrister in attendance. The Bar may place some resistances to such a suggestion, but the taxpayer has a right to be considered in this case. I put forward the view that this is one way in which there could be a substantial reduction of the costs of divorces on the Legal Aid Fund.
We cannot expect a social service of this kind to be introduced without there being obligations upon the professions to examine some of the systems now in existence. We are all aware, if we have had any contact with the law, of some of the apparent frivolities, as I would call them, of the assize system. From my own experience, I know that there is an unnecessarily heavy burden on the Legal Aid Fund because of the time which has frequently to be spent in travelling from one town to another while an assize is sitting, not only by solicitors and barristers, but by witnesses, experts, consultant engineers, and consultants.
This occurs, for example, when an assize is held in South Wales. Although it would be simple for cases which could conveniently be heard in Cardiff to be heard in Cardiff and cases which could conveniently be heard in Swansea to be heard in Swansea, because of the traditional alternation of the assize town between Cardiff and Swansea, dozens of witnesses at each assize are compelled to travel from town to town and dozens of people are compelled to waste time.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Has the hon. Gentleman brought these facts, important as they may be, to the notice of the Streatfeild Committee, which is inquiring into this very position?

Mr. Abse: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am aware of the work of the Committee, but it touches considerably on the cost to the

Fund. When we are discussing a Legal Aid Bill of this kind, we should draw attention to our disquiet that this burden should fall on the Fund.
Because the scheme is being extended we should consider also whether it would be possible to extend the jurisdiction of the county court judges. Costs in the county court are lower than in the High Court. It is to the credit of the scheme that the extension of the jurisdiction of county courts to £400 has proved successful. It would speed up work and reduce costs if the jurisdiction was raised to, say, £600. Such a change would avoid not only long delays but the additional costs due to a case being heard in the High Court.
Now that the State is becoming one of the most important patrons of the legal profession it is increasingly necessary to ensure that taxpayers are assured that lawyers have no vested interest in the perpetuation of litigation involving divorce and crime. Obviously they have not. I know that lawyers would willingly work themselves out of a job as far as divorce and crime are concerned, but great dangers will exist if the training of members of the Bar and solicitors reduces them to what may be called functionaries.
We are now considerably expanding a social service. The legal professions must therefore recognise new obligations to the community. Those obligations are different from what they were in the past. For example, if we are to have a Legal Aid Fund of this type in existence to which more and more charges can be debited we surely have an obligation to bring in a training scheme for the professions in which, for example, as far as the criminal law is concerned, a lawyer has some knowledge of penology as well as criminology. He should be in a position to be a social engineer as well as a functionary.
The lawyer will eventually have to face the need to reconsider his training. He could, for example, make an important contribution in reducing the number of the divorce cases if he had the type of training that I have in mind. It is not enough for us to give merited praise to the legal profession for the way in which its members have participated within the scheme. They have played an important part, but it must be


realised that the extension of the scheme will present a challenge to the legal profession. This challenge will be met if the lawyer is prepared to accept the rôle of a social engineer working within an important social service.
When that is done we will be able to attract into the legal profession not only those of great ability but those who are moved by the idealism which will become increasingly important if we are to make this new great social service work with humanity and understanding.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I, too, welcome the Bill. I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said, but I hope that the House will not accept 90 per cent. of his suggestions. Whatever branch of the legal profession a lawyer belongs to, it remains a legal profession. After one has studied the theory of the law, one puts one's knowledge into practice in whichever branch of the profession one chooses. The suggestion that lawyers should follow the fate—and I use that word advisedly—of being controlled and directed, either directly or indirectly, by the State because the State contributes something towards the money which they ultimately receive, is one which I hope all lawyers, in whatever part of the House they sit and in whatever branch of the profession they practise, will fight tooth and nail. I hope that they will remain good lawyers, and good lawyers only.
Having criticised the hon. Member for Pontypool, may I now, by way of consolation, say that I agree with much of what he said about some things? I was amused by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General discussing the Law Society's Divorce Department. I agree that it is time that it came to an end. I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend was going to cut its throat, or let it die a natural death.
There are two important factors to bear in mind. When listening to the Attorney-General I realised the enormous number of people affected by this scheme. Until he told us the figures, I had not realised that almost half the population of this country, whether they be affected by civil or criminal matters, were entitled to ask for

the advantages of the scheme. It is an enormous proportion. If a person applies for assistance under the scheme and obtains a certificate he receives not only direct financial advantages, but indirect ones. The granting of a certificate means that if the litigation is contested and the holder of the certificate loses the action he is absolved from the ordinary burden that falls on unsuccessful litigants, that of paying the other side's costs. That has a double advantage: first, financial assistance to a greater or lesser degree to pursue an action, and secondly, the removal of the fear of having to pay costs. A legally assisted person is therefore in an extremely advantageous position.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that that point has validity only if the aided person does not make a contribution. The vast majority of people are required to make substantial contributions. In the past the contributions have sometimes been so large that the assisted person has not been able to continue the action.

Mr. Doughty: I will come to that point in a moment. I am dealing with the costs of the successful opponent if the legally-aided person loses his case. Be it 100 per cent. or only 5 per cent., the legally-aided person has the shield of not being called on to pay the successful party's costs.
One of the advantages of that is that as soon as the other side knows that its opponent has a legal aid certificate it is inclined to say: "I have a good case. Everybody says that. But what is the point of fighting it? It is heads you win and tails I lose. Let us see if we can consider it entirely as a commercial transaction and pay whatever it costs us to fight the case". That is an advantage that has little to do with the merits of a case. It is an additional reason why I support what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said. We must think more of the person who is up against a legally-assisted person, whether that person be just outside the limits of the legal aid system or whether it be the State.
He will look upon it as a commercial transaction and, acting as a reasonable man, paying out money, he may feel that


he should not pay it. The legally-assisted person will have a certificate, where-as the person who is just outside the scheme feels great hardship if he wins his case and gets no order against his apponent, who is nearly as well off as he is.
I agree with my hon. and learned Frend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) about the question of principle. I do not think that it should be left to the court to say that there should be such an order in cases of hardship, because it means that the court will have to inquire, in every case, what were the defendant's means and what was the hardship involved, and courts do not have the time to do this. I see no reason why a person should not have protection and also be ordered to pay the other side's costs.
We have heard about the details, with regard to capital and income, which have to be given by the legally-assisted persons, but that applies only in a serious and contested case, whether it is a question of divorce, common law, or chancery. In the vast majority of cases, which are usually undefended divorce cases, a contribution far below the maximum figure is asked for. It is all that is required to conduct the matter, certainly in county court actions and undefended divorce actions.
I do not know whether it is true, but I have heard that in cases where actions are dealt with quickly—such as undefended divorce cases in the county court—and an order is made for a contribution to be payable at a small rate weekly or monthly, there is a tendency for the assisted person against whom such an order is made to forget about those weekly or monthly payments. I am told that the amount now owing to the Legal Aid Fund in respect of such cases has grown to a large sum. This may be quite untrue, but I should like to know what the position is. I am told that individual repayments are not worth recovering. It is not worth the time and trouble involved to recover a few shillings. That factor must be considered when we are thinking about the finances of the scheme.
The Bill only brings this legislation up to date. It raises the level at which people can be assisted, and I believe that

in this case we have struck the right level in regard to income. I hesitate to refer to anything which has been said about the contributions by the Bar, but it has been said that it is a little hard that it should have to make this contribution. Since the administration of this scheme will obviously be much more expensive than in the past—both in respect of greater numbers to be dealt with and in its application to criminal matters —I should like to know how it will be administered. At the moment it is administered by legal aid committees, composed of people who work for nominal sums, and if the work becomes too extensive it may be difficult to obtain enough committees to sit often enough to consider these matters.
I would point out that these matters are difficult to consider. I speak from experience. Like most hon. Members present, I sit on one of these committees. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred we hear only one side of the story. Generally we hear only what the petitioner or the proposed plaintiff says. That does not make it any easier to come to a decision whether to grant or refuse a certificate. I know that we sometimes make a mistake and issue a certificate when, if we had heard the other story, we would not have done so.
As for the point concerning the cost of travelling to assize towns, I have already said that that is being considered by the Streatfeild Committee, and we should wait to hear what the Committee reports before deciding whether the assizes should be moved from one town to another, or abolished at one place and taken to another county.
I welcome the Bill. I know that it will have an unopposed passage. I am sure that it will assist people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have a grievance. The benefit to the community will be very great.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I support the Bill, because it is an extension of the Measure passed by the Labour Government in 1949. It was estimated in The Times, shortly before the 1949 Bill came into force, that almost 12 million people were capable of benefiting from it, and the Attorney-General has said that over 24 million will benefit from this Measure.


I wonder whether that figure is based solely on income, or also takes into consideration the various amounts of capital which people have, and whether the figure is very much affected by the wide range of capital possessed by people today.
One of the principles underlying the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee was that the
lack of means should not be permitted to prevent any person from prosecuting a just civil claim, or resisting a claim, in the Queen's Counts.
As Lord Shawcross—the then Attorney-General—said in introducing the Second Reading of the 1949 Measure, it was the charter of the little man to the British courts of justice. It has proved to be so in the last eleven years. It follows a principle that has long been enshrined in our constitutional law; indeed, it stems from Magna Charta itself. It is the principle that
To no one will we sell, deny, or delay, right or justice
That is the silver thread of equality before the law which runs through British constitutional history, and I am proud of the obvious results of the 1949 Act, which has enabled vast amounts of money to be recovered from time to time. We have only to peruse the annual Reports of the Law Society, dealing with the working of that Measure, to know how well it has worked out in practice.
Two things have since affected that Act. The first, as we have heard, is the fall in the value of the £, as compared with its value in 1949, or even as compared with its value in 1945, when the Rushcliffe Report was published. The second factor has been the general rise in wage levels.
The Bill will raise the income qualification from £420 to £700, and it will also raise the "no contribution" limit from £156 to £250. The figure of £500 in respect of capital remains, but no reason has been advanced why it should not be altered, together with the others. Indeed, no reason has been given at any time why that figure was brought into being. I hope that the method of arriving at disposable income will remain as at present, and that the same exclusions and disregards will be used when arriving at the final income.
A vast amount of litigation today in the Queen's Bench Division, and assize

courts, is financed either by insurance companies or by trade unions. A workman injured at work has two options. He may either go to the Legal Aid Fund to finance his claim for damages, or to his trade union. At this juncture, tribute should be paid to the great work done by the legal funds of trade unions for the amount that has been saved to the Legal Aid Fund by litigation financed by trade unions.
Only last Saturday in my constituency I heard of a case in which, because of the current limits of the Legal Aid Fund, a man who, for some reason or other, was out of compliance with his trade union and, unfortunately, during that time had had his hand cut off, was unable to have his litigation financed by his trade union. Unfortunately, such was his wage limit, he was not able to obtain the advantage of the Legal Aid Fund. There will always be gaps, always people who will not fall within any branch of the funds available, but, with the raising of the limits, and a recognition that the £ has fallen in value since 1949 and wage levels throughout the country have risen, the Bill is welcome in that it will extend the Act of 1949.
I have been reading the eighth Report of the Law Society on the operation of the 1949 Act. It showed that the cost of the scheme was by no means entirely borne by public funds. It stated that the Exchequer covers hardly more than 50 per cent. and the remainder is borne by contributions made by assisted persons from costs recovered on their behalf and enforcement of charges on property recovered or preserved. It shows that for the working of the scheme funds have been obtained from other sources. Both counsel and solicitors recover 85 per cent. of their fees through legal aid litigation. Whatever the reason for the original introduction of the figure of 85 per cent., it shows that the two branches of the profession have subsidised litigation to that extent. There are also compensations because their fees are guaranteed and the Legal Aid Fund can hardly become a defaulting client. I welcome the provision for raising the figure under present legislation.
The anomaly of the Divorce Department of the Law Society has been referred to in the debate. I am not saying that injustice is done to the client when


the charlady, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), obtains a divorce through the Divorce Department, but surely every litigant is entitled to choose his own solicitor and his own counsel. Solicitors and counsel should be properly paid for the work done for the client. From my own knowledge, at present counsel appear on behalf of the Divorce Department for fees as nominal as £3 5s. 6d.
If the fee for conducting other kinds of divorce within the Legal Aid Fund, or any other fund, is regarded as a proper fee—and it is very different from £3 5s. 6d.—why should the very poor be differentiated from the poor? Why should such a person be allocated a solicitor and not allowed to choose his own, as is done in any other form of litigation? I hope that appropriate action will be taken at the earliest possible opportunity to do away with the Divorce Department of the Law Society as it now stands. There is no reason why it should remain in existence.
I endorse the plea that the Legal Aid Scheme should be extended up to the Privy Council and to many other courts and quasi-courts. A small man who has a motor car or a house may have a claim against an insurance company or a disagreement with the company and the policy may state specifically that any problem must be litigated not in a court of law, but under arbitration. There are many clauses under which goods are sold and arbitration is preferred—or laid down in the terms for selling the original article. This should be seriously considered.
I should not like to say how wide the Bill should go, but it should be seriously considered whether legal aid should be extended to spheres beyond strictly courts of law. Tribunals and arbitrations should be considered. If legal aid is to be given for a court of law, why should it not be given to a man who needs it in a quasi-court?
I welcome the fact that power is taken in the present legislation to raise the limits by regulations subject to an affirmative Resolution. I hope that changes in wages and the value of money will not be allowed to outstrip the new limits by eleven years again before we have further legislation. I hope the present scandalous position whereby a

large number of people are denied their rights and are unable to finance their litigation will be remedied and that such people will not again have to wait such a long time for new legislation to be brought in.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. John E. Talbot: This is the first time that I have had the privilege of addressing this House and I would ask hon. Members to extend to me the generosity which they are always so ready to extend to those who speak here for the first time.
I should not have sought to do so had I not been able to bring a point of view to the debate which, perhaps, is slightly different from those of hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken earlier, namely, that of the country solicitor who is operating the Legal Aid Scheme. I wish to say how valuable an experience it has been for me to listen to this debate and to obtain the reaction of Queen's Counsel, and others more experienced than I am in the law, to this important subject. As has been said, the best way to become "the Ruler of the Queen's Navee" is to polish up the handle of the big front door of the lawyer's office. In my experience, one needs to go to the bottom of the ladder rather than to the top to find where the shoe pinches.
There are one or two things I wish to say about the Bill, which I heartily welcome. I start on the very controversial point in Clause 2, the amount of remuneration which a lawyer ought to have. I disclaim at once any personal interest in this, because every case I have taken under such legislation has been a complete loss. I wonder whether people generally understand the great complexity of the organisation of the solicitors' branch of the profession. Here, in London, there are large firms with fifteen or more partners and detailed specialisation in every branch of the law. To such a firm one, two or ten cases of this type are a mere incident in its professional progress, but in the country one finds it rare to have a partnership firm of more than five partners.
When one goes into a country town such as that in which I practise, one finds that the average firm consists of one, two, or at the most, three partners. Such


a firm is engaged almost entirely in conveyancing, family advice and buying and selling property. A case handled by such a firm going to assizes or the High Court is a major operation. It is a complete upheaval of the steady tenor of that office. It will be appreciated that in many cases firms of that kind have no managing clerks or articled clerks to collect evidence, which is one of the things that clients apparently expect one to do, and they have no means, other than the principal personally giving his time, of doing proper justice to the cases which their clients bring to them.
May I also point out to the House that the travelling problems in the country are utterly different from those in London. The town in which I practise is 15 miles from the nearest assize town and 40 miles from the divorce registry to which our affairs have been allotted. It is not just a question of popping out of Lincoln's Inn into the Law Courts and being back again in one's office within ten minutes. In having to attend before the district registrar in chambers, 40 miles away, an entire day's professional earnings are gone. This not only means that one may lose money, but that one gets behind in one's work, which no conscientious solicitor likes to do, and he may perhaps have to neglect some other client's business which is equally deserving.
I wonder whether the Government have given sufficient attention to this type of country practice in considering the recommendations which they have had. To such a firm, its duty under this Act can only cost it money, whereas a large firm, which is well-equipped to organise and undertake work of a character which ends in the High Court, may even make a profit out of the 85 per cent. costs. I therefore ask the learned Solicitor-General to say whether he can hold out some hope that this question may be gone into again.
I ask this, too, for another reason. Let us get clear what is the true basis of asking a solicitor today to work for less than the proper fees. Is it because he is working for the Government? I shall put a case which may perhaps be shot down as reductio ad absurdum. Let us suppose that we have a train in which there is a Cabinet Minister, or someone even more eminent. Would we say to

the engine driver, "You must work that day for 85 per cent. of your trade union wages because you are privileged to convey a member of the Government behind you"?
I suggest that if one did that the train would move just about as fast as the trains are moving today. There is no logical justification in asking a profession to work for less than its proper fee. It is not done in any other profession as regards the Government or local authorities.
Merely because services are rendered people should not be paid less than the economic value of their services. The person who renders this service should not be compelled willy-nilly to share the loss. In that sense, one has a feeling that 85 per cent. is a compromise between the days when the legal profession worked willingly for nothing and the alternative to paying the full value for its services. Like all compromises, there comes a time when this has to be able to stand in the light of day, supported by logical and ethical arguments.
Turning to Clause 3 of the Bill, I ask the Government to have another look at it, and, in particular, I want to discuss the liability of a solicitor advising a would-be applicant for legal aid in divorce. As we all know, a solicitor in a divorce case has a double responsibility. He has a responsibility to the client who consults him to give his best advice to that client and he has the responsibility to the State to ensure that in divorce—which, as we all appreciate, in the law is a quasi-criminal matter, in which the State has a direct interest—that interest is duly observed in the presentation of the case.
In my experience, this means that even before an application can be properly submitted to the legal aid committee, the solicitor, if he does his job properly, has to do exactly the same amount of work that he would have to do in presenting and preparing that case for court. It may be that he will not be the solicitor who will take the case. If he fails in his duty in advising the applicant to see that what he seeks is put down correctly for the legal aid committee, he may unknowingly involve the firm of solicitors who ultimately conduct the case in difficulties in which, had they known the full facts, they would not have encountered.
I feel that in divorce it is possible to take too slender a view of one's responsibilities. Nearly all these cases come to a solicitor before going to the legal aid tribunal and every incentive should be given to ensure that the case, before it reaches the stage where the brief is prepared, receives the most careful consideration and attention. The position is, of course, that the solicitor is either not paid at all for doing that work, or, if he wishes, he can send in his bill, but often the people concerned are unable to pay it and often he does not send in a bill because he would be ashamed to do so. I ask that that situation may be reconsidered.
I should like to make one other suggestion on the question of legal advice in additional courts. This is a matter which particularly concerns my constituency, Brierley Hill, where the urban district council has recently obtained an order permitting it to acquire a large insanitary area of the town, as the result of which compensation is now payable to the persons evicted. I have had the embarrassment of three of my constituents asking me whether the advice which they had received from local solicitors about compensation they have been offered is correct. Naturally, I have been unable to give an adequate reply.
The situation has emerged that in some of these cases the sum which has been offered, owing to the zeal with which the district valuers prosecute the interests of the Government, is very slender. We all know that there is an appeal in these matters to the Lands Tribunal, in London, but we often find that the cost of going there will exceed the compensation which will be received. No doubt some would say that an injustice is being done. We cannot take away the homes of people for the site value, or little more, because their homes have to be abolished in the interests of social progress. I say that an appeal from the district valuer to the Lands Tribunal merits the assistance of legal aid.
I hope that these and other grounds referred to by hon. and learned Members who have spoken will engage the Government's sympathetic consideration.
Finally, I want to say how well, in my experience, the Legal Aid Act has worked and is working. The principle is not in dispute. This Bill is required

only to march with the times and to tidy up the odds and ends. I can testify to the immense amount of social good which the Legal Aid Act has done. I am sure that in our further consideration of it we shall produce a fully up-to-date code which will satisfy the need of the people who require legal aid.

6.21 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I had intended beginning my speech by saying that I had been to the door to see whether there was a notice on the board stating whether anyone other than a lawyer was allowed to take part in the debate, but the sting has been taken out of my comments by the fact that the tradition of the House requires that I should first make reference to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot). I do so with the greatest pleasure. I listened carefully to the points which he made, which are quite new in relation to this subject. The House will hope to hear him again at a time when he can be more controversial with his own side of the House. He will then have a fuller opportunity to deal with the points which a new Member of the House wishes to bring out. I speak for the whole House when I say that we hope to hear him on many occasions.
I have been waiting for the Bill for some time to see whether provision would be made in it to protect those people who receive legal aid and on whose behalf an order is made for damages. Perhaps the best way I can explain this is to cite a case of which I know. I believe that there are many similar cases. This case occurred in my constituency, and it concerns an ordinary working man who in 1950 had an accident at his work. His firm were not insured. The person on whose property the accident had occurred was not insured.
As a result of the accident the man lost an eye. This reduced his earning capacity. He was advised to see a solicitor about a claim, and he did so. The solicitor suggested to him that he had an excellent case, and gave him some idea of what the cost would be. The man replied that he was working as an ordinary labourer and could afford nothing like the amount of money which would be required to pursue his


claim for damages. His solicitor told him how he could apply for legal aid. His case was submitted, and he was considered to be in such a bad financial position that the amount he was to pay was fixed at only £12 10s. He said that he would try to pay that. He paid £12 10s. to the Law Society and obtained a legal aid certificate. His case ultimately went to the courts and he was awarded damages of £950 in 1950 or 1951. The person against whom the damages and costs were awarded went into court to say that this could not be paid. That was contested and an order was made for a weekly payment of 10s. for the £950 damages plus the costs.
The mother of this man, a constituent of mine, came to see me and wanted to know what would be the position in respect of the damages which her son had been awarded. I wrote to the Legal Aid Department and was informed that it had no power to do other than claim the £249 costs. These had to be paid on the basis of the order which had been given in court for the costs.
This man has not received a half-penny of the £950 damages, because the Law Society said that under the Legal Aid Act there was nothing to prevent it from fully recovering the amount of costs before any damages were paid. I waited for five years. It is about five years since I contacted the Law Society. Oddly enough, possibly because the man saw that the Bill was being introduced and wanted to know what would happen under it, I received a letter from him this morning asking me what was happening about the £950 damages for the loss of his eye.
Obviously, this is not the only case of this sort. I had hoped to see a Clause in the Bill giving the Law Society power to say that instead of claiming the whole of the costs, only half of the weekly payments would be made to the Law Society and the other half would be made to the injured man. That would have given him a small sum. It is very difficult to give praise to a scheme when ordinary, working-class people who think that they have been given the advantage of it are subsequently £12 10s. out of pocket in a case in which they have been given legal aid, particularly when they do not receive a halfpenny of the damages. In this case, £950 has been awarded for the

loss of an eye and the man's earning power has diminished considerably as a result of the loss of an eye. This is a point which should be dealt with in the Bill.
This is Second Reading, when I can say what I think should be included in the Bill. I think the Solicitor-General should look at this point to see whether it is possible to insert a short Clause stating, in effect, that in cases of this sort a man who is awarded damages should receive half of the amount which is to be paid weekly or monthly by the person against whom the order is made, where that person is not in a position to pay all the costs or damages at once. Probably, as a result of my raising this matter tonight, my post within the next few days will be heavy with letters on similar cases. It ought to be possible to frame a Clause such as I have outlined.
I do not know whether the Legal Aid Department has any information on cases of this sort. The mother of this man, a constituent of mine, says, "It is all very well to say that this is legal aid, but although my son won his case, it cost him £12 10s. and he has not received that money back. In ten years he has not received a halfpenny of the £950 damages." With payment at the rate of 10s. a week, it will be another few years before the £249 has been paid, even if the order is being paid, as the court instructed, on a weekly or monthly basis.
It is no good lawyers patting themselves on the back about this scheme, even though they will get something extra out of it. We cannot be satisfied while there is even one case in the country in which a person who has been given legal aid, and who has been awarded damages, receives none of the damages because the Legal Aid Department first requires the whole of its costs back before a halfpenny can be paid to the injured person.
I hope that notice will be taken of this point and that inquiries will be made through the Law Society to see how many similar cases there are. If we discover that there are a number of these cases, I hope that before the Committee stage an opportunity will be given to insert a Clause which will guarantee protection to people to whom the law gives the right of legal aid but who are then


deprived of the right to any of the damages awarded. This matter needs attention. I should have waited until I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, even if I had sat here all night. I am not a lawyer, but just an ordinary Member of Parliament in touch with this sort of case. My only association with legal aid is seeing people who come to me to get legal advice. I send them to a personal service society to see whether they are entitled to make application for legal aid.
In case the Law Officer wishes to look at the case more closely, let me give him the name and address so that his Department can obtain the details from the Law Society and check that what I am saying is true. The man's name is Mr. R. Travers, of 17, Croxdale Road, Liverpool 14.
Those are the facts. If that is the situation in one case, there must be many more, and I am told that there are. It is essential to make a full inquiry to discover whether it is necessary to put a new Clause into the Bill in order to protect people who receive legal aid and obtain damages and ensure that the whole sum is not taken away by the Law Society in the payment of costs in circumstances such as I have related.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has undoubtedly raised a very important point which the Government should examine. If it is not a point to be dealt with in the Bill, perhaps it could be dealt with by regulations under the main Acts.
I rise to say a few words about the Bill, because it deals with Scotland and I feel that at least one Scottish Member ought to say something about it. Up to now no one from Scotland has spoken and, as usual, there has been no explanation from the Scottish Office about how the Bill affects Scotland. We have had simply a brief word from the Attorney-General, and that is not good enough.
I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. All it does is to raise the limits of the main Acts to bring them into line with the extent to which the cost of living has risen since the original Acts were passed. The original Acts were passed in 1949

and became law in 1950. An increase of £280 upon £420 does not represent very much more than the fall in the value of the £. If it does only that, as it appears to, the Bill does not do very much.
We must not forget that not many years after the principal Acts were passed large numbers of people were being excluded because of the narrowness of the limits set by them. If the value of the £ falls again, that is likely to recur. I should have liked to have seen the limits higher than they are set at present. I was not very enthusiastic about the provisions and limits set in the 1949 Acts. I recognised that they met a need, but they did not meet it in the proper way.
Legal aid must be considered from the point of view of it being a social service which is paid for through Government machinery and used by the people in accordance with their needs. I know that that is to some a rather revolutionary doctrine and is not favoured by many lawyers, although there are lawyers in Scotland who prefer that attitude. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said that he did not want to see lawyers controlled. Lawyers enjoy many things in this world, but they cannot have it both ways. If the State is to spend increasingly large sums of money on providing legal aid and meeting the expenses of lawyers in connection therewith, lawyers must accept the consequences. Whilst I welcome the Bill inasmuch as it remedies something which has been causing much criticism for many years, it does not seem to me to go far enough.
Clause 3 deals exclusively with Scotland. I am glad that the Clause is in the Bill. I believe that the Law Society recommended in one of its annual Reports that this provision should be made. A certain amount of publicity has been given to this and to the necessity of meeting the expenses of lawyers who prepare cases which are not ultimately accepted. However, the provision does not go far enough. Here I put in a word for the lawyers, which is a some-what unusual event for me. My dealings with them are such that I do not always feel too friendly towards many of them, but I must put in a word for lawyers in this connection. I wish to quote a case which I think would not be covered by Clause 3. An applicant in Edinburgh


went to the Law Society with a view to obtaining legal aid for bringing an action for damages. She was then sent to solicitors who spent about two years trying to prepare a case for her. At the end of those two years she decided that she was not satisfied with the lawyers. She went back to the Scottish Law Society. She was sent to another lawyer. As the second lawyer could not have access to the evidence accumulated by the first firm of lawyers, he had to set about trying to prepare a case. He spent a year to eighteen months trying, but was not able to do so. I did not see the evidence prepared by the first firm, but a considerable amount of work must have been done. Unless the case is taken before the Committee—in other words, unless there is a probabilis causa which is presented to the appropriate committee—I am told that the lawyers receive nothing. Perhaps the Law Officer will confirm that. That seems to be rather unfair to the lawyer and to the applicant.
A firm of solicitors is rather hesitant about the expenditure it incurs, especially in a case which takes a long time and probably demands the obtaining of evidence from witnesses in other parts of the country. In this case the witnesses were situated all over the country. It was exceedingly difficult to obtain witnesses. Indeed, it was very difficult to find where they were, let alone to obtain evidence from them. This position is unfair not only for the lawyer, who has gone to considerable trouble, but also for the applicant who is likely to find that the firm acting on her behalf does not do all that it should to try to build up the case.
That is inevitable in the nature of things, but Clause 3 does not do anything about it. Therefore, whilst the Government have undoubtedly met one of the criticisms of the administration of the scheme in Scotland, I doubt whether they have gone far enough. Perhaps the English may think that they ought not to, but in a matter like this the Lord Advocate should not so much consider the feelings of the people south of the Border. We want justice in Scotland —never mind what the English may be content with. The Lord Advocate or some other Scottish Minister should tell

us how the Bill, and this special provision that amounts to almost a quarter of the Bill, affects Scotland.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: In the absence of a reply from any of the Scottish Ministers to what seemed to be a purely Scottish question on a purely Scottish Clause, I suppose that I have no alternative but to assume that there must be some sinister reason for their silence. If they really do not wish to speak, or if they have some reason for not doing so, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two about the debate.
It has been very interesting for the lawyers to listen to one another. They have approached the matter from slightly different points of view, but, at the end of the day, we should remember that on this occasion there has not been a cloud of witnesses. There has been a cloud of lawyers, and two witnesses. Only one of those witnesses was English, and that English witness brought up a point that I felt was very real, although whether it is very closely connected with this Bill is another matter.
There is something wrong when a man who has recovered substantial damages from an insolvent or, shall I say, a poor person, finds that whatever money that person has must first go to the Legal Aid Fund and that the successful litigant thereby gets nothing by way of damages. I know that that point of view may be shocking to many lawyers if they look at it too much as a legal matter, but they will agree that when one looks at it as an ordinary social question it is right that that state of things should end, and that there should be some provision for it in a Bill that provides a form of legal service.
I shall not go over all the comments made by my hon. Friends, but shall, instead, select one or two points. One is that it is the experience of many of us that when dealing with constituents the danger point, if I may call it that, in the legal aid arrangements is the county court; that is to say, there are people who want to bring comparatively small but very real cases in the county courts, and they are the people who are apt to find that under the scheme the difficulties of doing so are too great.
The Eighth Report says that the average contribution to county court cases is


rather over £40 and that the average contribution to High Court cases is rather over £50. On the other side of the picture we have my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) asking that for the small litigants—the under-£50 claims in the county court—there should be some simplified procedure. I shall not go into the details—I no longer practise at the Bar and should not feel competent now to do so—but I suggest that as the scheme develops, the county court, and particularly the small cases in the county court, ought to be watched very closely in order that, if possible, things may be simplified.
I turn now to the Divorce Department of the Law Society. I appreciate the difficulties and the objections, and the murderous tendencies of various speakers today in regard to that department are easy to understand. However, we have to remember, when all is said and done, that it is dealing with a certain number of simple divorce cases, and dealing with them, as one of the notes in the Report says, very cheaply indeed.
While I agree with what one of my hon. Friends said, that litigants ought to have the right, where practicable, to choose, there are many simple cases where litigants are very glad indeed to have the services of the Divorce Department. From the point of view of economy of administration, there is something to be said for it, even when we have to complicate the figures by bringing in the administration costs of the department itself.
Next, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) who, in a maiden speech, gave us a sympathetic and lively picture of some of the difficulties of solicitors in country practice. He made us see something of what the country solicitor's day's work is like. That is always a very good introduction to this House. I hope that we shall hear him again and have the benefit of his experience.
I have left my congratulations on the hon. Member's maiden speech to this stage because he mentioned particularly the hardship he felt had been caused in a number of cases by the inability of people to go to the Lands Tribunal. Whatever the merits or demerits of this case may be, I suggest we could not have

taken a better instance to illustrate the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and others of my hon. Friends, that it is time that legal aid should be extended to tribunals and—I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—to arbitrations, too.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon who mentioned insurance policies. That is a very common case. An arbitration clause in an insurance policy may really defeat a poor litigant who, in court, would have been able to get legal aid but cannot get it in arbitration proceedings. As those of us who have practised at the Bar well know, arbitrations do not always save expense, They have been known to develop into a game of procedural shuttlecock that adds to the cost.
When the Legal Aid Scheme was first introduced, there was no Franks Report, and hon. Members on both sides have joined in trying to give a measure of legal protection and legal regularity to tribunals—for that is the broad effect of the Franks Report—and it seems to follow as a corollary to that that legal aid should be extended in this way.
That brings me to a rather broader point. The vast majority of the provisions of the present Act have, in one form or another, been brought into operation. There is very little left. It is about time that the Government cleaned it all up and applied legal aid or legal advice in all the places where it could be done under the Act; Section 23 was mentioned by my hon. and learned. Friend the Member for West Ham, South. It would be simpler now to complete the Act, and it does not require very much for that to be done.
We welcome the Bill as a whole because it provides for the type of increase for which we have been asking. I cannot, however, conclude without saying that it seems to me that the Government, or the Treasury, have been a little tight-fisted. These increases ought to have been brought in a long time ago. In the circumstances, it was unwise and not really right to embark on the nice calculations with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman presented us and to cut down on a matter of this sort the recommendations of their own Advisory Committee. I should have thought that


it was just for this sort of point that the Advisory Committee was set up, and that when we get this Report it requires very special grounds and not mere niceties of calculation to cut down the figures that that Committee suggests to the Government.
I should like to make one more point, and here I go beyond the Advisory Committee. I do not feel that the capital arrangements are satisfactory at present. This figure has remained very low in proportion to the income figure for a long time. It is not operated on the same lines as the National Assistance capital provisions. There are disregards in connection with National Assistance which do not apply in these cases, and this is justified in the Advisory Committee's Report of December. The Advisory Committee was asked to consider this question, and stated:
Capital is accumulated, as the Rushcliffe Committee recognised, as a 'nest egg' for dealing with emergencies, and legal proceedings if undertaken in good faith are emergencies for which capital should be used.
There are all kinds of things that are emergencies, and many of them have to be provided for by National Assistance and the like. But why this particular emergency should result in this sort of treatment of capital I do not understand.
The Committee goes on quite illogically to say:
… some regard has to be had to the decline in money values and to the desirability of encouraging people to save.
The Committee then suggests the amendment of £125 that we have in the Bill. My comment on that is: if it is thought that some regard has to be had, surely more regard ought to be had. Surely this capital amount ought to have a substantial increase corresponding with the increases which have been made from time to time. Indeed, it surprises me that I should have to say this to a Tory Government who, I thought, were proud of encouraging people to save. I always feel that many of the hardships of legal aid lie in calling on people to spend their savings in order to vindicate what is their right or, if one likes, to defend themselves against an accusation which proves to be unfounded. It is, in a sense, an emergency, but it does not seem to me to be morally right that savings should be called upon for that purpose.
I would make one comment on the point about the provision for successful opponents recovering from the Legal Aid Fund. This point was made by many hon. Members, and one sees the point, but I would like to make this comment. First, it is not entirely a comment on the Legal Aid Fund. This is really the difficulty of the insolvent litigant—the man who, with or without sufficient resources, starts an action against a council, let us say, in the hope of getting it settled and not for much other reason, and the council, regarding his insolvency, may think it expedient to pay a little money without really being liable. It is a general scheme.
Secondly, I would say this about it. If we are going to do this, we are then going to increase the liability of the assisted litigant, and this will involve a pretty comprehensive reshaping of some of the conditions about his own contribution. I am not saying that it is not a matter which should be examined; I feel that it is. But I do not think that it is so simple a matter as some hon. Members have indicated today.
We on this side of the House support the Bill because it represents some increase. We feel that there are many other things that could still be done to improve the Legal Aid Scheme, that there are points which need looking into, that many of them indeed have arisen and have been commented on in today's debate, and that after this excellent debate we on these benches will not divide the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Solicitor-General.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This Bill includes a provision applying to Scotland and I was wondering whether any Scottish Minister would give us an explanation of the Scottish Clause, Clause 3.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

6.57 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I are very grateful for the reception that the Bill has had today and for the valuable speeches and fertile suggestions that have been made from both sides of the House.
There have been many good speeches today, but I know that the House would wish me to single out the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot). I should like to join with the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in their very felicitous and completely merited tribute to my hon. Friend for that speech. It gave us a picture of the working out of the scheme on the ground, as one sees it from a country solicitor's office, that was of very great value to our apprehensions in the debate.
There have been a number of other suggestions and ideas on which I will not comment at this time, except to say that we will, of course, study them gratefully and constructively in the course of the next few weeks.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who is not now here, put forward a general argument—I thought tenuously attached to the Bill—about the organisation of the legal profession and, indeed, the whole legal system, and it certainly extended far beyond the Legal Aid Scheme. I thought that he was lucky in some ways to be allowed to deliver the whole of that speech; and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to reply to it, except to say that the matters with which he dealt were reviewed by the Evershed Committee, whose conclusions by no means accorded with his, and some of them are being considered at the moment by the Streatfeild Committee, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) pointed out.
I should like to deal with a number of leading issues which have been raised. I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will acquit me of any sort of discourtesy if I do not deal with Clause 3, because he did not have the advantage of hearing the explanation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in introducing the Bill. I think that I should be doing the House an injustice if I repeated what he said.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry that I did not hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. I made inquiries and I was informed that what he had said had been a very trifling contribution to

the debate. [Laughter. ] I mean that what he had to say about Clause 3 had been a very trifling contribution to the debate. I was not referring to his speech as a whole. Indeed, I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was most diffident even in making the few remarks he did.
I did ask about the extent of the Clause and I quoted a specific case. Surely we ought to have an answer about that from the Scottish Ministers.

The Solicitor-General: I can only say that, even within the limits to which the hon. Gentleman finally restricted his remarks, he is quite misinformed about my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. When he reads it in HANSARD, he will, I think, find that my right hon. and learned Friend dealt with the very point to which the hon. Gentleman adverted.
The Legal Aid Scheme as a whole has stood up very well to examination today. The essence of the scheme is that the Legal Aid Fund should be put in the same position as the solicitor of a private client and the legally aided litigant should be treated, so far as possible, exactly as a litigant litigating privately. From that arise the circumstances to which the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange referred. Because of that conception of the Legal Aid Fund, it was laid down in Regulation 16 (6) of the Legal Aid (General) Regulations, 1950, made under the 1949 Act, that
Upon receipt of moneys paid to them by virtue of this Regulation, The Law Society shall retain—
(a) any sum paid by virtue of an order or agreement for costs made in the assisted person's favour.
I have had the very great pleasure of serving with the hon. Lady on a Royal Commission. I know her deep interest in social problems and the very solid way, if she will allow me to say so, in which she approaches them. I am sure that she will understand that, although in individual cases this may work out unfortunately, it is inherent in the scheme if one is to endeavour to treat the assisted litigant in the same way as a private litigant is treated. No doubt, we shall have the opportunity to look further into that matter, even if we do not have the opportunity of discussing it on this Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: There is this difference, that, if the solicitor concerned had been a private solicitor in a case like that, it would have been open to him to forgo his right to have the first payment applied to costs and to allow the injured person to receive some damages. The difficulty of the Act and the regulations made under it and the character of the Fund is that that is impossible.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, quite right in saying that it would be open to a private solicitor to behave in that way. Of course, the normal relationship of solicitor and client is a business one.
The first of the principal topics which arose in the debate related to the cost of the Scheme. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) asked for the cost of the scheme. Last year, the cost of the scheme was £1,400,000. If one adds to that the new provisions relating to oral advice and legal aid under Section 5 which will come into effect shortly, the extra cost will be £232,000.
There are then the new assessment regulations which will add an extra £100,000. The Bill's proposals will amount to about £675,000, and the magistrates' courts will account for £250,000. The total of those figures is £2,657,000. Those are the figures for England and Wales only. I regret that I am unable to give an estimate of the cost of extending the scheme to tribunals or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a figure of £232,000, I think, with reference to legal advice. Is that a net amount taking into account litigation which it is calculated will be avoided by reason of the giving of advice, or is it the fact that the cutting down of litigation as a result of the legal advice provisions is not taken into account in the figures he has given?

The Solicitor-General: It must be the latter, because at this stage the net effect would be absolutely incalculable.
The comparable figures for Scotland are as follows. The cost last year was £179,000. The figure for oral advice is £5,000 and for Section 5 £10,000. I gave those two figures together in the English

figures. For the new assessment regulations the figure is £12,000 and for the proposals in the Bill the figure is £95,000. The Scottish Land Court will account for £1,000 and the Lands Valuation Appeal Court will account for £1,000. The total there is £303,000.
I am told that it is not possible to forecast the cost of introducing in Scotland legal aid in criminal proceedings until the report of the Guthrie Committee, which is now considering this subject, is received. It can reasonably be expected to amount to between £200,000 and £300,000 a year. I hope that I shall not be blamed if those limits are exceeded.
Those are all very large figures. Several hon. Members have quite rightly said that this is a social service, but it is an expensive social service which has to compete in the Exchequer with other expensive social services. Although, today, our interests are rightly focussed on this scheme, we must not lose sight of the fact that there are other claims upon the taxpayer and such funds as are available.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West asked me how the scales under the Bill and the scheme compare with the National Assistance scales. The answer is that, by and large, they are identical in both income and disregards. But, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering pointed out, there is a divergence when capital is considered. This leads me to deal with the third of the topics raised by several hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson), and two hon. and learned Members opposite, namely, the capital limit of £500.
We are not altering the limit there, and we have taken that course because we were recommended to leave it where it is by the Advisory Committee. In paragraph 11 of its Report, Cmnd. 918, the Advisory Committee says:
The proviso to section 2 (1) of the Act provides that a person may be refused legal aid if he has a disposable capital of more than £500 and it appears that he can afford to proceed without legal aid. We recommend no change in this provision.
The hon. and learned Gentleman traced that back to the recommendation


of the Rushcliffe Committee, which said that the capital could be expected to be called on if there were a sudden emergency. It seems to me that the sudden emergency of litigation is quite different from the emergency which calls in the National Assistance Board. That is a continuing emergency in a sense, and, therefore, it is reasonable to have a wider disregard from the point of view of capital than under the Legal Aid Scheme. At any rate, that is, I should have thought, the idea behind the Rushcliffe Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Mitchison: It was not I who traced it to the Rushcliffe Committee. It was the Advisory Committee itself, in paragraph 8 of its Report. Having said that, the Committee then made a concession in order to have some regard to the decline in money values and to the desirability of encouraging people to save.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The rub on the capital point is that it takes everything over £75, which is now increased. That is what appears to us on this side to be so extremely severe.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate that. That is fundamental to the idea of calling on capital for the sudden emergency of litigation. A line must be drawn somewhere.
It seems to me that this further conception may have lain beneath the Rushcliffe Committee's recommendation and, indeed, the Advisory Committee's recommendation. A person may have capital sufficient ex hypothesi to finance litigation. In those circumstances, would it be fair or right to call on other people, the general taxpayers, some of whom may be considerably less well off from the point of view of income and capital, to assist in the litigation which, as I say, the litigant himself is capable of financing?
The next matter which was canvassed concerned the future of the Divorce Department of the Law Society. This was raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool and, in a very interesting speech, by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). The argument was that the legally-aided litigant is placed in

a different position from that of the private litigant in that he cannot have a free choice of solicitor. It seemed to me that there was great force in the reply of the hon. and learned Member far Kettering. The hon. Member for Pontypool said that undoubtedly it has done useful work in the past, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering was right when he said that there were good reasons of economy for setting it up.
We have not formed any final conclusion about the future of the Divorce Department of the Law Society. The position at the moment is this. We are to pass this Bill which will greatly extend, as has been recognised, the number of people who may be claimants for legal aid. It seems to us, particularly as the Divorce Department has worked well in the past, that this would be a bad moment to wind it up suddenly. It may, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, have to run down for administrative reasons, but this would be a bad moment to make a sudden break in a machine which is functioning satisfactorily.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Obviously, important questions are involved here. If there is a change of policy, will the House have an opportunity to discuss it before it is put into operation?

The Solicitor-General: I would not like to give an immediate answer to that question, because I am not sure whether it would need a resolution. At any rate, I do not doubt that there will be an opportunity to discuss that matter in the course of the Bill, when I will try to give a specific answer to the hon. and learned Member.
The fifth main point which was raised concerned the remuneration of the legal profession in operating the provisions of the Bill and the Legal Aid Scheme. The Rushcliffe Committee recommended, and the scheme originally set up by the party opposite implemented, a deduction of 15 per cent. from the sum normally payable to the solicitor or counsel conducting the case. The Rushcliffe Committee pointed out that that deduction represents 50 per cent. of the profit normally remaining to a solicitor after he has met his overhead expenses. The Law Society has represented that the profit of a case was frequently—in fact, it said, normally—less than 15 per cent.
Again, I think that this is not a subject on which we should take up a rigid position, but the new and uncertain factor at the moment is that the new costs rules, as the House knows, came into effect on 1st January this year, and none of us has yet had practical experience of their effect. There is no doubt that they will very considerably raise solicitors' profit costs—probably by over 30 per cent. Again, this would be an inauspicious moment to revise that figure of 85 per cent., but it is one which we will keep under constant review and which we have taken power under the Bill to raise if circumstances so demand.

Mr. J. T. Price: While the Solicitor-General is giving deep thought to the proportion that ought to be retained, will he bear in mind, in considering the question of the payment of costs from a State fund as compared with payment from a private client, that the solicitor of a private client has to rake into account a number of bad debts and irrecoverable costs? Anyone in practice will bear testimony to this. I should imagine that 85 per cent. guaranteed by a State fund is a much more valuable guarantee to the legal profession than 100 per cent. which has to be collected by the hit-and-miss methods now open to it.

Mr. Page: Nonsense.

Mr. Price: It is not nonsense.

The Solicitor-General: Undoubtedly there is a certain amount of force in that assertion which was made very pointedly by the hon. Member for Aberavon. There is no doubt that the certainty of payment and, to a great extent, the speed of payment under the scheme has been of value to the legal profession. It is not unreasonable that that should be reflected in the percentage—

Mr. Mitchison: All these shares are gilt-edged.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman must work that out from his own Stock Exchange experience. At any rate, as I said, we have taken power to raise the percentage by regulation, when we know rather more about the working of the new cost structure, if that is indicated.
Lastly, many hon. and learned Members raised the question of the costs of an unassisted litigant. This is a very difficult question which we have to weigh. Undoubtedly, it is a hardship to an unassisted litigant whose opponent is assisted and who, when he succeeds, fails to recover the costs which he has incurred in vindicating himself. Undoubtedly, where a legally-aided litigant has lost in the first instance and legal aid is then extended so that he may take the case to the court of appeal where the unassisted litigant again wins, the hardship seems even more difficult to bear if only because the chance of recovering any costs there must be very remote.
It is easier to state the case than to find the solution. In the time of Queen Elizabeth the form of order for admitting a person to sue as a poor person read:
But if the matter shall fall out against the plaintiff, he shall be punished with whipping and pillory.
I do not think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) would go as far as that desperate expedient in this case.
By the eighteenth century there were virtually no sanctions but the operation of the poor persons procedure was very restricted. By the beginning of this century, as hon. Members know very well for they must themselves have taken part in the operation of such schemes, there was a committee of lawyers which investigated every case to see that a prima facie case was made out. The unsuccessful litigant admitted as a poor person was ordered to pay an opponent's costs only if it was found that he was admitted as a poor person by fraud or misrepresentation.
I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering is right when he puts the matter in its wider setting. This problem is not a new one nor, as he pointed out, is it limited to legal aid. It is a problem which is inherent whenever a man is sued or sues and is not good for the costs.
A number of suggestions have been made in the course of the debate about which I should like to say a few words. The first is the suggestion of payment of the assisted person's opponent's costs by the Exchequer in some form or another, either by an indemnity fund or


by automatically paying the amount which the award against the assisted person does not cover. The first and principal difficulty is the cost. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out, it would cost £200,000 to set up a full idemnity fund for the High Court alone. That sort of sum must be viewed not only in the light of other calls for the extension of legal aid which we have heard today, but also in the light of other claims for other social services.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important within the immediate context of the scheme, it would mean the State embarking on both sides of litigation. That happens occasionally at the moment under the Legal Aid Scheme, but it is inherently undesirable, as I see hon. Members with experience of litigation under the scheme agree. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in opening the debate, it is important that legal aid should not actively encourage litigation.
Among other things, the conduct of the action being uncontrolled, there would be no control over the incurring of costs by the unassisted litigant who would claim to be indemnified. As a marginal point, it might also tempt committees to tip the scales in favour of granting legal aid when they should refuse it. On these grounds, and most of all because of the cost and the fact that it would be an incentive to litigation, we should pause very long before adopting that expedient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned some other matters which were very useful to have reviewed. He mentioned that leave to appeal should be sought in the case of a legally assisted person who had failed in the court below and wished to go to appeal, just as in an interlocutory appeal leave to appeal must be given by the court below or, on refusal, by the Court of Appeal. Among the arguments against this is that it differentiates between the legally assisted litigant and the paying litigant who does not have to have leave to appeal.
On the other hand, the poor person under the old procedure had to have leave and so, I think, did the bankrupt. But it is a matter which we should bear in mind as a possible way of saving

litigation where there is no chance of a successful litigant recovering his costs.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman help me? If there is a question of appeal, does not the litigant have to consult the people responsible for administering legal aid and therefore this would be adding to or substituting the court for the legal aid authority?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member is quite right. That was the point I was next going to make.
It would be a definite inroad into the Legal Aid Scheme in that under the structure of the scheme we give responsibility to the Law Society through its local or area committees to say whether the proceedings are to be brought. It is only fair to mention also that appeals are considered not by the local committees but by area committees. The proportion of successful appeals is just about 50 per cent. and that figure is actually higher than successful appeals to the House of Lords where the leave of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords is required. Nevertheless, having said that, I still do not think that it is a matter that we should exclude altogether from view.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned the point, though only with disfavour, that we might try to improve the machinery of bringing to the notice of the Legal Aid Committee any reasonable offer made immediately before or even during the course of litigation with the object of trying to restrain the pursuit of the litigation where there was no chance of a succcessful defendant or respondent recovering his costs.
Another matter which it is right to mention is that there is power already in the judges under Regulation 15 (6) to call on the unassisted party to file an affidavit setting out his means so that the court can take that into account in awarding costs in his favour. I am told that the power is rarely exercised. It seems to me a valuable one. There are already a considerable number of disregards, both capital and income—and quite rightly—which are very relevant when one is considering whether legal aid should be granted and what contribution should be demanded from the


litigant towards the Legal Aid Fund and the taxpayer generally.
But the situation is different when it is between one litigant and another where the legally aided litigant has failed. It seems to me that the balance of hardship is then a different one; and particularly now that we are raising the disregards, it seems to me that it would be reasonable that the judges should exercise the power to make a much closer investigation of means and see whether in all the circumstances it is not fair to make a positive order for costs against the legally aided litigant who has failed on a rather stricter standard than in the past.
I hope that I have dealt with the main points raised in the debate. We will consider the suggestions made. We shall be able to discuss the details of the Bill, including the Clause mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, when we get to Committee.

Mr. Willis: When we deal with the Scottish Clause can we have an assurance that at least on that occasion it will be dealt with by Scottish Law Officers?

The Solicitor-General: I will gladly draw that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate—indeed, he is here himself to hear that helpful and, as it seems to me, constructive suggestion.
As I have said, we are grateful for the support which is being given to the Bill. Those of us who are lawyers—and we have mainly contributed to this debate—get great enjoyment from the exercise of our profession. But in the end, what contributes most to our satisfaction is the thought that we are trying to serve in our way the great cause of justice. One of the things that is most painful is to find someone who is labouring under a sense of injustice and who feels that the courts are closed to him for lack of means. It is because the Bill improves the machinery for ensuring justice, not least to those who are poorest, that I again commend it to the House.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am sorry that I have to come in at this

moment, Mr. Speaker, but it would be much better if there had been an intervention from one of the Scottish Ministers. It is a sad day for Scottish law that such a thing should have happened. One of the things we were guaranteed by the Act of 1707 was that Scotland, as a nation, began to get the continuance of its own law. Over the past few years, under a Conservative Government, we have seen Scotland being sorely trampled upon, and legislation which merited a separate Scottish Act of Parliament being churned in along with English legislation. So it did not come to us as any surprise, when there was a new Legal Aid Bill, that we were again part of an English Bill. But even accepting that, we did not expect that when the occasion came to debate the Bill we would not hear a single whisper from any of the Scottish Ministers, particulary the legal officers.
If the Attorney-General thinks that this is not such an important Bill, does he not think that it is sufficiently important to Scotland that one of the Scottish Law Officers should address himself to it? After all, the main parts in relation to Scotland which are alike could have been equally dealt with by a Scottish Law Officer. Of course, we have the apology from the learned Solicitor-General and the promise that we shall get more elucidation of the Scottish part in the Committee.
The fact is that Clause 3, which is an important one, does not apply to England and Wales, but only to Scotland. whereas the other Clauses apply equally to England and Wales. I am tempted to go over the whole Bill from Clause 1, but I will resist that temptation. I take the introduction of the Bill as a measure of success of years of prodding by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and myself. I can remember when the Legal Aid Bill went through in the Scottish Grand Committee, because we had a Scottish Bill then. My hon. Friend and myself acted more or less as the Opposition at that time and expressed our dissatisfaction with the statutory limits that were laid down. Although it has taken ten years for the limits to be raised, I join with my hon. Friend in again expressing our dissatisfaction with the limits as they presently are.
I want to try to telescope two speeches into one, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to see from the Money Resolution that it will be possible for us to make suggestions in relation to its amendment—does the Lord Advocate wish to intervene?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): It is seldom, Mr. Speaker, that one—

Mr. Ross: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to refer to something I had said. I did not realise that he was going to make his speech. He must not do that yet. I want to ask the Lord Advocate why Clause 3 is there and why it is limited only to Scotland. Does he think that it goes far enough? When we appreciate the time and trouble taken in preparing a case for submission in relation to the establishment or refusal of legal aid, it is pretty bad, when a certificate is granted, if the client refuses to accept it and does not go on to proceedings.
Surely the same difficulty will arise in relation to a closely contested case if legal aid is granted but not accepted because of the amount of work done by the solicitor. What are the reasons that have made the Lord Advocate not press for the inclusion of that type of case, for the proper remuneration of a solicitor in that instance? It may well be that just as much work is expended, that there is just as much expense and labour in respect of the gathering of evidence, seeing witnesses and the rest. What effect does the Lord Advocate think the fact that this remuneration will not be available will have on whether or not a solicitor will proceed very far in the case? It may well be that because of this bar many a case that has been accepted by the Legal Aid Committee may not be proceeded with.
Despite what we have said, we must appreciate that lawyers might well be human, and might have no desire to submit themselves to losses in respect of such work and effort. Does not the Lord Advocate think it would have been wiser to allow us to discuss this in Committee? Judging by the Money Resolution, this is one of the things we shall not be able to amend in Committee, as I read paragraph (c). Did not the Lord Advocate appreciate that by word-

ing his Money Resolution in such a way he would not give us an ample opportunity of raising a controversial point?
Apart from that, we are glad to have the Bill. It does not go far enough, but, unlike the Solicitor-General, I am sure that there are still many people who will not get the legal aid to which we think they might have been entitled, as a result of the financial limitations here laid down.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): May I answer briefly the points made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in regard to Clause 3, which is the Scottish Clause? The point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East related to circumstances in which no legal aid certificate was ever granted, and it is suggested that by both hon. Gentlemen that provision might have been made in certain circumstances that the solicitor should be remunerated.
I would draw the attention of hon. Members to Section 1 (6) of the original Act, which provides that a person shall not be given legal aid unless he has probabilis causa litiganti. It was thought at that time that that was appropriate. I think it is right that unless a person has a probable case which satisfies the financial arrangements no legal aid should be granted.
The second situation which may arise—it is the one which Clause 3 is designed to meet—is where a legal aid certificate is offered but is not taken up. In those circumstances there is a probabilis causa litiganti, and, in our view, the solicitor is well entitled to be remunerated for his services.
The third type of case is that existing at present, where the certificate is granted and is taken up and the solicitor gets his remuneration. I appreciate the points made by hon. Members. One might go back much further and say that when any solicitor was consulted at any time he should get remuneration, but, of course, under certain other provisions in the Bill he has an opportunity, under legal advice and the like, of getting remuneration for what he does. Clause 3 is meant to deal with the situation in which there is injustice to the solicitor, where he has done all his work but for


one reason and another the person who has been granted a certificate does not feel disposed to carry it forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No.38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No.84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to relax the financial conditions for legal aid under Part I of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, and under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949, and to make further provision for the remuneration of counsel and solicitors in connection with such legal aid or with applications for it, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums required to meet any increased charge falling on the Legal Aid Fund or on the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund by reason of any such amendments of those Acts as are mentioned below, that is to say—

(a) any amendment relaxing the financial conditions for legal aid by altering the present limits on disposable income or disposable capital, or the maximum amount of the contribution to the Fund (including amendments applying any alteration in the maximum contribution in respect of income to cases where a legal aid certificate is issued before the Act passes); and
(b) any amendment providing for increased remuneration to persons giving legal aid, where their remuneration is now limited to eighty-five per cent. of the amount allowed on a taxation or assessment of the costs; and
(c) any amendment providing for the remuneration of solicitors who act for an applicant for legal aid in Scotland in cases where the applicant is found entitled to legal aid subject to the issue and acceptance of a legal aid certificate, notwithstanding that such a certificate is not issued and accepted.—[The Solicitor-General.]

7.42 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Before the Lord Advocate runs away, I should like to ask a question concerning the matter raised just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The Money Resolution undoubtedly seems to be very tightly drawn in respect of Clause 3. The part of the Money Resolution dealing with

that Clause is paragraph (c). Am I correct in assuming that it will be impossible for any hon. Member to try to amend Clause 3 in order to extend its provisions under paragraph (c) of the Money Resolution? The wording of paragraph (c) certainly seems to suggest that.
If that is so, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Money Resolution has been drawn very tightly and is denying Scottish Members who are interested in the Bill the opportunity of discussing the matter properly and trying to get something done about a matter which causes a considerable amount of discussion in Scotland?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): My right hon. and learned Friend explained at an earlier stage why the provision was not made in the Bill for the purposes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. It would not be for me to decide what the discussion could be in Committee; that would be a matter for the Chair. Consequently, that matter must be left to the decision of the Chair. However, my right hon. and learned Friend has fully explained why it is that it is not possible to give legal aid in cases where a legal certificate is not issued and is not taken up.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I should be prepared to argue that the words:
…to make further provision for the remuneration of counsel and solicitors in connection with such legal aidd…
would cover an Amendment relating to the costs of the successful opponent of an assisted person, but I should not have tremendous confidence in my argument. It is not for me to ask for an interpretation of that now, but I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, if it is found in the next stage that the Money Resolution does not cover an Amendment such as I have indicated, he will give an assurance that at a later stage the Money Resolution will be amended.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): No, Sir; I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance. The Money Resolution is drafted to cover what is proposed in the Bill and to allow for amendment to be made with


regard to the limits of disposable income or disposable capital and with regard to remuneration and, under paragraph (c), for:
…any amendment providing for the remuneration of solicitors who act for an applicant for legal aid in Scotland in…
certain cases.

Mr. William Ross: The Money Resolution is a fairly good one in respect of paragraphs (a) and (b) because no limits are laid down there and it is quite open to us to try to persuade the Government that the limits which they have set in the Bill are too low. However, in paragraph (c) we are told that money will be provided only in respect of:
…any amendment providing for the remuneration of solicitors who act for an applicant for legal aid in Scotland in cases where the applicant is found entitled to legal aid subject to the issue and acceptance of a legal aid certificate, notwithstanding that such a certificate is not issued and accepted.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will appreciate that that actually rules out the possibility of making any further amendment along the lines on which we were arguing. He rose to say that the Lord Advocate had explained this matter to us.

Mr. Willis: The Lord Advocate did not explain it.

Mr. Ross: The Lord Advocate explained it, but he did not persuade us.

Mr. Willis: The Lard Advocate did not explain it. He just told us.

Mr. Ross: We should have liked to have a discussion during the Committee stage about what we think is an important principle. Will the Lord Advocate tell us whether or not it was with a view to avoiding that discussion that he advised the Treasury about the wording of paragraph (c)?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I am asked whether I drew the Money Resolution in such a way in order to avoid a discussion with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Certainly not. I should be prepared to discuss anything with him anywhere.

The Money Resolution was drawn up in accordance with the provisions in the Bill, and at an earlier stage I explained why certain provisions were in the Bill and why there were certain limitations in the Bill.

Mr. Willis: The Lord Advocate has not given a very good explanation. He has not told us why the Money Resolution should be so tightly drawn. I can understand why the first part of the Money Resolution is as it is, in order to give us an opportunity of varying the amount of disposable income and so on, but in Clause 3, with which paragraph (c) deals, a new principle is being introduced. Payment is being extended for purposes for which payment was not previously made. Surely, in those circumstances we ought to have the right to discuss during the Committee stage that extension of principle and whether what the Government have decided to do is correct and whether the Bill should not have been extended rather more.
That is a right which the House of Commons should have, but which we are denied by the terms of paragraph (c). We have simply to accept what the Government have put before us, and the terms of paragraph (c) make it impossible to do anything about what they have suggested. That is not playing fair with the House of Commons. We ought to have been given a chance to discuss and to amend the Bill's provisions in this respect, but, as the Money Resolution is drawn, we shall not have that chance.

The Lord Advocate: I point out that what we are doing by this Clause is extending the rights of a solicitor. As I pointed out earlier, Clause 1 (6) limits legal grant being made to a person who has a probabilis causa, in other words, a certificate. Technically speaking, that does not include a person who is receiving aid if he does not take up the certificate. It is in order to cover that point that Clause 3 is included and we feel that it is as far as we can go.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to make permanent provision for the collection of certain statistics relating to births, stillbirths and deaths. Until now, that information has been obtained under the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, which was originally passed for a period of ten years and which, since 1948, has had to be renewed each year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts.
In recent years, there has been criticism in the House during the passing of the latter Acts that this legislation had not been made permanent, and I therefore trust that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the fact that we are now taking the first steps toward making the legislation permanent.
In substance, the Bill provides for the same information as the 1938 Act, with some minor changes, but with one addition of some importance. Clause 2 provides for the collection of information on the causes of still-births in England and Wales, and I will return to that change in a moment and explain why it is included.
The purpose of the 1938 Act was to provide statistical information which would help in the study of population problems and the information obtained has made it possible closely to study the changes affecting the country's birthrate. In 1938, the need for that information was emphasised by concern about the possibility of a decline in the population combined with an increasing aged population. But that is not the position today, or, rather, there is no decline in the birthrate. The higher birthrate since the war has completely altered the situation, though the importance of a reasonable assessment of probable future trends of population remains.
Changes in the size of families and in the size and age structure of the population affect particularly the amount to be paid in family allowances, the need for educational facilities, the demands on

the Health Service, and the amounts paid in retirement pensions and other National Insurance benefits. The need for information on population trends therefore continues.
The Bill provides that the 1938 Act shall be made permanent with some modifications gained from experience of that Act. There are few changes in the Schedule. Generally, the question asked under the 1938 Act were found adequate for the purpose of studying population changes. Because hon. Members will wish to know, I should also state that in general there has been no complaint about that 1938 Act. It has worked smoothly and reluctance to give the information asked for has been very rare.
At the request of the Medical Research Council, the age of the father at registration of birth has been added to the Schedule, and that is important in connection with fertility studies. The only new item, except for the question of whether the mother was previously married, at present asked on a voluntary basis, is that question about the age of the father.
There is another question, because of the need for separate statistics, due to the fact that the number of women, widowed or divorced has risen. We now wish to know the distinction between widowed and divorced women at death. On the other hand, the items dealing with the number of children of the mother have been simplified and two items normally required at death have been left out.
Again, I stress that the information obtained under the Schedule of the Bill will not be recorded in the permanent registers, and the present Act imposes a specific bar on disclosure, except as may be necessary for the compilation of statistics.
I referred to the information on the causes of still-birth. The position here is rather different and needs Amendments of the Acts relating to the registration of still-births. That information has been obtained in Scotland for the past twenty years, but not in England and Wales. Although infant mortality has been declining steadily in recent years, which is a matter of considerable satisfaction to all of us, the decline is largely accounted for by the reduction


in the mortality of children between one week and one year.
The mortality of children in the first week of life has not declined so rapidly, nor has the still-birth rate shown much variation until the last two years. There is a close connection between the causes of early infant death and the causes of still-birth, and a study of the problem would be greatly helped by a collection of information on the causes of still-birth.
A person registering a still-birth is already required to produce a certificate showing that the child was not born alive, and, in Scotland, stating the cause of death. All that is unchanged, except that in all cases the cause of death will be asked for and, in addition. the Bill provides that certificates shall include the estimated duration of the pregnancy. Clause 3 provides for the last paint also to apply to Scotland where it is already sometimes included as part of the statement of the cause of death.
The House will wish to know that medical and midwifery organisations are in general agreement with the proposal to obtain information about the causes of still-birth, and among those who have been consulted are the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Society of Medical Officers of Health and the Central Midwives' Board.
The statistics derived from the information obtained under the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, and comments on them are published in the annual reports of the Registrars-General. The statistics obtained from the new information will be published in the same way. Under the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts the present powers will be continued until 31st December this year and it is proposed that when the Bill has gone through all its stages, it will be brought into operation as of 1st January next year, so that continuity of the statistics will be maintained.
Thus, the yearly renewal under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act will no longer be required, and I think that that will please the House.

8.0 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: This is a short but very important Bill of four Clauses. It is a Bill of tragic

significance. I am astonished that the hon. Lady sought completely to evade the significance of the Bill. When I read the inept speech of the Minister for Science in another place, I realised that he was endeavouring to do the same thing until, at the end, a noble Lord asked him a question and, in his winding-up speech, he was compelled to explain to the House the purpose of this little Bill.
I agree that unless accurate statistics are forthcoming one can get only a blurred picture of the conditions obtaining in any area, and that statistics enable assessments to be made of progress, or lack of progress, in the reduction of the incidence of disease. Figures produced in hon. Members' constituencies by their medical officers of health every year provide an index to the incidence of disease in their own limited areas, and from those figures can be deduced environmental factors which are related to the aetiology of certain complaints. What I have just said is rather related to the purpose of the Bill.
The Bill makes a further contribution to the information regarding still-birth and foetal abnormalities. I do not blame the hon. Lady, but I am appalled by the brief which she has just read to the House. Scotland is a small country—the Scots will forgive me for saying that—but there is a large population here. Why does the hon. Lady think that doctors are to give a diagnosis of the cause of death? Why does she think that it is now said that if a doctor is not there the midwife will do it? Why has she not explained all this to us? There is a reason for it. The doctor has more knowledge. Why does she think that for the first time in Scotland and England the duration of pregnancy has to be given?
Why has the hon. Lady not told the House? This is very curious. Why is it necessary to know the duration of pregnancy? Why has the age of the father of a still-born foetus to be given? The hon. Lady said, "We have got to examine fertility". We really must not be mealy-mouthed about this. Why are we suddenly making inquiries into the fertility of men at various ages? Are there things about the fertility of men which are not known to scientists?
Why, in the Schedule to the Bill, are we suddenly told that the age of the father has to be given? The hon. Lady is here to give the House this information. Why has it not been given? The hon. Lady says that we are having the father's age for the first time because we want to study fertility? Let me tell the hon. Lady why. I am surprised that her right hon. Friend has not introduced the Bill. On second thoughts, perhaps I understand why he has not done so. The hon. Lady should have been told this by her Department. Why has it been found necessary to introduce the Bill in the middle of the twentieth century, a century in which we thought the Welfare State had cut down the incidence of disease?
These are the reasons. First, when the doctor diagnoses the cause of death as far as he can—and it will have to be a visual diagnosis—he will describe the condition of the foetus. Not only has the still-birth rate not dropped, but the number of microcephalics—and we were warned about this in the reports concerning nuclear radiation—has increased. When he reports the cause of death the doctor will state the condition of the foetus. He will also report the number of foetal abnormalities which are being Dorn. The duration of the pregnancy is also to be reported. The hon. Lady dismissed all these grave questions by talking about fertility. I shall explain later that in terms of reproduction the age of the foetus is of tremendous importance.
Has the Minister gone far enough in the registration of congenital abnormalities in this country? We have heard that all those organisations associated with these questions have welcomed the Bill. They welcomed it because they know what is happening. They know that the still-birth rate is stable but that the number of monstrosities, as we called them when we were students, has increased.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read an article in this week's B.M.A. Journal on anencephaly and other congenital abnormalities. The article was written by Dr. M. P. Plydell, the Medical Officer of Health for Oxfordshire, and deals with an epidemiological study in

Northamptonshire. He says that congenital abnormalities merit the same detailed epidemiological study today which, in the past, has been directed to infectious disease. He then proceeds to explain how he had to collect his material from various sources. This investigation and the conclusions he draws are so valuable that it would appear that the time had arrived for a comprehensive form of registration, or notification, or certification, whatever the Minister thinks proper, of congenital abnormalities.
This limited Bill will enable us to obtain more information relating to still-births. The fact is that for centuries venereal disease has been responsible in a great part for still-births. That is why the population at the beginning of the last century was remarkably low. The number of still-births in this country was out of all proportion to the population and to the number of live births. The antidote to venereal disease has been discovered. One would therefore expect a spectacular reduction in the still-birth rate. That has not happened.
Although the infant child mortality rate has fallen considerably, the neonatal rate—that is, death in the first week—has continued high. The reasons for the death rate of babies within the first week, and the death rate of babies before birth, in the utera, in the womb, are related.
It is clear from the information which has been asked for in the Schedule that this little Bill is related to the serious menace which threatens those living, and posterity, namely, the genetic effect of nuclear radiation. It was only when the Minister for Science, in another place, tried to evade the issue—as the hon. Lady has tried to evade what is the real significance of the Bill—and was pressed, that in his winding-up speech he said something which made it quite clear that he was unfit for his job. He talked about human mutations and the effect of radiation on mutations. He was compelled to do that because one of the medical noble Lords pressed him to answer a question.
In 1956, the Medical Research Council, which, I understand, welcomes the Bill, published a Report called "The Hazard to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiation". We had a debate on the


Report and I had the privilege of speaking from this Box on behalf of my party. This Bill is consequential upon that Report. I ask the hon. Lady to read it. On page 22, under the heading,
The effects of exposure to radiation during pregnancy",
it states
After heavy doses of radiation, a pregnant woman may miscarry or give birth to a stillborn child.
There is no comfort in arguing that she will not often be subjected to a heavy dose of radiation; the genetic effects of radiation are cumulative, which means that every dose of radiation, whatever the source, is of the greatest importance.
The Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation emphasises that there is at present no known threshold of radiation exposure below which genetic damage does not occur. The Prime Minister should have remembered this before he told the Africans not to worry about the Sahara bomb because it would release only a small amount of radioactivity. However small the amount of radioactivity, genetically it is of great importance.
I now come to the question of the father's age. To make any worth-while deductions it is necessary to have the father's age, for the genetic effects can be assessed only if the length of the reproductive period of life, during which both mother and father have been exposed, can be estimated. The stillborn foetus was not the product of its mother; it was the product of its mother and father. Therefore, in order that the statisticians should have a proper picture they must know precisely how long each parent has been exposed to radioactivity. The only time that really matters is the reproductive period.
This is the reason for the introduction of the Bill. I have spoken rather strongly because, on every occasion when a Question has been put down, let us say, upon the increase of leukaemia—and there is no argument about it; leukaemia is increasing in this country—there has been an evasion of the issue. We have never been able to get a Minister to admit that radioactivity is partially responsible for the increase.
But here we have a Bill the import of which every scientist who reads it will

know precisely. We have had a speech which underestimates the intelligence of hon. Members—a speech which not for one moment touched upon the real reason for the introduction of the Bill. Unhappily, man-made radiation has now so polluted the atmosphere that the Bill must be made a permanent Measure. That, also, is significant. No longer can such a Measure be introduced every year; it is necessary to have these statistics perhaps for as long as any hon. Member will live. Let us not pass it lightly when considering the reasons which make it necessary in the middle of the twentieth century.
The irony of the situation is that many hon. Members who are listening to me tonight have devoted much of their lives, in the field of social services, to trying to reduce the incidence of disease, and yet now, in the twentieth century, we have deliberately injected into the atmosphere something which the Report on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiation says may harm some who are now living, and may harm posterity.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I hope that the Minister of Health will intervene in the debate, because this is a matter of considerable importance. If we cannot have the Minister of Health, let us have the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Knowing how attentive the Parliamentary Secretary is to her duties, I am sure that it will come as no surprise to her that I am speaking tonight. If she looks through the reports of our debates on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for the last eight or nine years she will find that I have spoken on nearly every occasion upon the subject of the Population (Statistics) Act. It is strange that we have been continuing this Act ever since 1948 on a year-to-year basis. During that time we have had the Report of the Royal Commission on Population, which had much to say on the question of what statistics were available and could be made available, and the importance of them.
Time after time I asked the Government why they continued something so important as this upon a year-to year basis. It was about four years ago that we were compelled, as Scottish Members


are occasionally compelled, to drag a Scottish Minister to his feet and admit that the reason for the delay was the concern about the hazards of nuclear radiation. For the first time we had an admission from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—now Lard Craigton—that what was holding up the Government's decision to have permanent legislation was the fact that they did not have particulars of all the additional questions that would require to be asked as a result of studies being carried on into the effect of radiation upon the population.
Having heard the hon. Lady speak, my sole purpose in intervening is to ask what has happened to the studies that the Government were carrying out, and why we have not been told that in making this legislation permanent the Government have at last decided that they have now asked all the necessary questions to guide them in dealing with the effects of radiation upon the population.
I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) was a little hard upon the Parliamentary Secretary. The fault was not entirely the Minister's. But my right hon. Friend was right in stressing the importance of the subject. The additions being made to the legislation are really very few. They relate to the incidence of still-births, the age of the parents, and the duration of pregnancy in relation to still-births. These questions are related to the studies which, as Lord Craigton told us four years ago, were giving the Government concern, and in respect of which the Government thought that until they were completed they would not be able to make up their mind what to put into the permanent legislation.
Are these seemingly simple changes brought about because of the Government's realisation of what is happening, and the necessity for having year-to-year information about the growing effect of radiation? I am surprised that the Government did not mention this. It may well be that they know quite well the history of this Measure. In 1938, when the first Act was introduced, there was quite a storm in the country. A great newspaper campaign was carried on about the invasion of the privacy of

the individual and about asking such questions.
I think that what the Government are doing is right, but I think it wrong that the Government are not telling the country why they are doing it. I hope that the Minister of Health, or someone of his stature who has not already intervened in the debate, will take the opportunity now and tell the country why these questions are being asked.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has made a speech which, I venture to say, will arouse some anxieties outside the House. It is a pity that there have not been more hon. Members present to hear her indictment of the Government on this matter.
Her speech was followed by a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in which he pointed out the successive stages through which this matter has gone in this House without attracting any very great attention here or in the world outside. We have the privilege of the presence of the Minister of Health, to whom my right hon. Friend made a direct appeal, which was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, that he should intervene and say how far the strictures made by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend are justified, with the knowledge that he has now been head of his Department for some years.
As a rule, he is very communicative to the House in regard to matters which come within his purview. On occasion when his Department has been attacked he has tried to press down hon. Members on this side of the House with a ferocity which would make him appear to be a lineal descendant of the late Sergeant Buzfuz. I was rather anticipating that tonight the right hon. and learned Gentleman would rise in the spirit which he showed when dealing with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who made certain allegations against his Department in regard to the importation to this country of a vaccine which the Minister thought he was being unjustly attacked about.
This is a very important matter. Now that it has been raised so definitely by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, I would have thought the


Minister of Health would have seized the opportunity, either of saying that my right hon. Friend's case was quite unfounded, or of admitting that the questions she suggested from her professional experience were involved in this Bill were, in fact, the motivating power of the Government in introducing it. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not miss the opportunity of informing the country about how far he accepts what has been said by my right hon. Friend in the course of the remarks she addressed to us.

8.24 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I certainly would not take the occasion of this Bill to make an extensive commentary on what fell from the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). As the House knows, I have not got her medical qualifications and experience on these matters. I assure the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that I would not take this particular topic to make the sort of speech to which he referred, a speech which, I think, he compared to the orations of Sergeant Buzfuz in another context.
The Bill changes the method of collection of these statistics. In respect of still-births there are the important additions in respect of the age of the father and the length of pregnancy. The right hon. Lady has said that there are more congenital abnormalities. Part of the object of this Bill is to find how many births there are of congenital abnormalities, in other words, to answer that question. Therefore, the machinery of the Bill is a good one.
We are here operating on the advice of the Medical Research Council. As the right hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman know, I am not the Minister responsible for the Medical Research Council, in spite of its name. It is the responsibility of my noble Friend the Minister for Science, who introduced the Bill in another place.
The studies which the Medical Research Council is making on this matter will be assisted by the wider information which is to be obtained, and that is a valuable thing. It is happily true that the proportion of mutational births is very small, but in the context

of radiation, which as the House knows comes from all sorts of sources—we have had this at Question Time many times—there is natural radiation and diagnostic radiation as well as radiation arising from tests. In a modern society—I was going to say a sophisticated society, but I do not know that that is a particularly happy word—in a society such as we have today, the question of radiation becomes more important. Even if the number of mutational births is very small indeed, nevertheless there is something here which we have to study. The Medical Research Council is anxious to study it, and we are anxious to give the Council the facilities and scope under this Bill which will enable it to do so.
Than is part of the reason why we think this is a good Bill, because it makes this addition to what was possible before. The other reason why we think it a good Bill is that it is giving permanent form to something which heretofore, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, was subject to annual re-enactment under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I am sorry I am not able to follow the right hon. Lady in the medical technicalities of this matter, nor do I think she would expect me to do so, as I do not enjoy the advantages she has in this respect, but I hope that explanation will reassure the House that the object of this Bill is a good one and one which deserves an unopposed Second Reading tonight.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why this whole aspect has been evaded? He has accepted it now. He has spoken about mutational births, as he called them. Of course, there are spontaneous mutations and mutations related to radioactivity. Why did his representative come to this House to tell us that here was this simple little Bill dealing with population when he now admits that its real purpose is related to radioactivity?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Obviously that is not the whole purpose of the Bill. This system of collecting the statistics and having them available for scientific study dates back, as my hon. Friend explained, to 1938. It has a history of mare than two decades and is of great value, as the right hon. Lady knows or should know, in all sorts of ways quite apart from the more specialised use she has been discussing. This Bill and the study of


statistics which will flow therefrom are of great importance in many contexts, in the social services amongst others.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist us to this extent? I understand that the Minister for Science is represented in this House and his Department is answered for by one of the Parliamentary Secretaries or Under-Secretaries. Will he assure us that we shall have the presence of that hon. Member to assist us in the further stages of the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There are various Ministers entrusted with the diverse and important functions of the Minister for Science when they come to this House. I have no doubt that on the Committee stage of the Bill the Committee will have the assistance of my hon. Friend and myself and a suitable Minister for Scotland. We shall endeavour to deal with any points which may be put. If the right hon. Gentleman has any particular point in mind which he thinks is of a specially technical nature, it would be characteristic of the courtesy and constructive approach which he always shows if he would communicate it to me first, which would enable me to get the most expert advice that I can.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No.38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — POPULATION (STATISTICS) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No.84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make permanent the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by any provision of the said Act of the present Session amending or giving permanent effect to the said Act of 1938.— [Miss Pitt.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That
(1) On Mondays, 22nd February and 23rd May, unofficial Members' notices of motions shall have precedence until seven of the clock and if not previously concluded the proceedings thereon shall lapse at that hour and the House shall proceed with the government business.
(2) On Wednesdays, 30th March and 29th June, government business shall have precedence until seven of the clock and if the business has not been concluded earlier Mr. Speaker shall at that hour proceed to interrupt the proceedings thereon and such business shall be disposed of as if it were business interrupted at ten of the clock under Standing Order No.1 (Sittings of the House) and the House shall then proceed with unofficial Members' notices of motions.
(3) Ballots for precedence of unofficial Members' notices of motions shall be held after questions on Tuesdays, 9th February, 15th March, 10th May, and 31st May. for Monday, 22nd February, Wednesday, 30th March, Monday, 23rd May and Wednesday, 29th June, respectively, and no such notice of motion shall be handed in for any of these days in anticipation of the ballot.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (Delegation) Regulations, 1959 (S.1., 1959, No.1915), dated 13th November, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, be annulled.
The earlier part of these Regulations, paragraphs 1 to 4, do no more than continue the power possessed by county councils, which are the planning authorities, to delegate to county districts. The Regulations revoke some of the earlier Regulations, but they preserve part of them by paragraphs 1 to 4. With that part I am not greatly concerned. In paragraph 5 of the new Regulations and under the Schedule thereto there is a new feature; what are called "excepted district councils", which are now given the power to require delegation. The earlier part of the Regulations if a power to a county to delegate if it wished. We now have a new feature—a power of certain district councils to require that powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, shall be delegated to them.
These excepted districts are to be, first of all, those with a population of 60,000 and over, but, in addition, they may be any others to whom the Minister gives his approval. The first question which I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is, how frequently does he expect that the Minister will give his approval to district councils with a population of less than 60,000 being able to require the power of delegation? How often will that be done and by what criteria will he decide whether it is appropriate for him to give one of the smaller district councils the power to require the delegation of these powers?
It might be said that even in this matter there is nothing very new because, if I remember correctly, the Local Government Act, 1958, gives a similar power to the smaller local authorities to require delegation with regard to education, health and certain other services. It might be argued that these new Regulations do no more than apply that same principle to town and country planning. We all agree, however, that town and country planning presents certain special features and that it is not immediately obvious that a decentralisation of government which might be appropriate to certain other services is appropriate for town and country planning.
The Parliamentary Secretary and I both have a certain feeling of novelty about the proceedings tonight. Had it not been for the last Parliamentary redistribution of seats, we might have faced each other in conflict in a constituency which has now disappeared from the map. We now meet each other in a different context, but although both of us are no doubt endeavouring to find our way in this vast labyrinth of local government, all hon. Members are bound to have a certain knowledge of local government. problems. One's mere position as a Member representing a constituency obliges one to acquire a certain amount of knowledge about local government problems.
It has always seemed to me that there is one perennial problem running through the whole business of local government. That is, if we make authorities too large they become too remote from the people whom they serve and begin to represent mere slices on the map without any coherence or common feeling,

and if we make them too small they are incapable of handling some of the very important responsibilities put upon them. The latter is liable to be particularly true about town and country planning. A small authority might be admirable for dealing with those services which bear directly and immediately on the day-to-day life of citizens, but sometimes, by the defect of that virtue, it may not be suited for the functions of town and country planning. Its very attachment to its own limited district and its pride in it may make it difficult for it to perform functions which require consideration of the development of a whole region, its industries, its natural beauty and all the other varied considerations which make up the task of town and country planning.
Fundamentally, the question which I want to ask tonight is how we can make this idea work of delegation in town and country planning to authorities with populations of 60,000, and in some cases less. There is one answer which the Minister can give me immediately. The Schedule to the Regulations sets out the scheme of delegation which is to come into force when any council requires it. It is immediately apparent that it provides for many exceptions. The Government might answer the question I put just now by saying, "We can make the idea of delegation work in town and country planning because we have provided so many exceptions one way and the other that if it does not seem to work as we thought it would we can always get it round the other way". The reverse side of my question therefore is this. Looking at the Schedule in detail and seeing how many exceptions to the general principle it contains, one may ask whether the idea of delegation will work at all.
The functions delegated are mainly functions under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, which is concerned with the development and use of land. The Schedule excepts from the scheme of delegation functions concerned with mineral workings and functions under Section 29 which is concerned with buildings and places of historic and architectural interest. We should understand straight away the reason for both those exceptions. It is apparent on the face of it that the judgment of a larger authority might be


more suitable. I notice also that functions under Section 25 are not to be delegated. As far as I can see from studying the Act, district councils have those powers already, and I presume—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm this—that that is the sole reason why Section 25 is excepted.
We find, next, that Sections 14, 17 and 18, which deal with the granting of permission to develop land, are to be delegated by the county to the district, but the district can if it wishes push them back on to the county. That is a possibility of exception from the scheme of delegation one way. Conversely, powers under Sections 21, 23, 26 and 28 are to be delegated, but if the county thinks that the district is not handling them properly, it can take them back again. Therefore, one set of powers in Sections 14, 17 and 18 are delegated, but can be pushed back by an unwilling district on to the county, and another set of powers under Sections 21, 23, 26 and 28 are to be delegated, but the county can in certain circumstances take them back.
All the Sections in Part III of the Act, which is what the Regulations are concerned with, which are not mentioned by number in the Schedule and to which I have not referred, are merely dependent for their working on the Sections which are mentioned. Fundamentally, the Sections I have mentioned are the bone and substance of Part III of the Act. We have, therefore, a scheme for delegation of the powers under Part III which says, first, that they are to be delegated. It then says that some—namely, Sections 25 and 29 and functions concerned with mineral working—are not to be delegated. It then says that some of them are to be delegated, but the delegatee can refuse the delegation if he wishes. It says, finally, that the rest are to be delegated, but the delegator can take them back if he wishes.
In those circumstances, it is reasonable to ask how the Minister sees the scheme working. Is it to be assumed that the special powers mentioned in the Schedule—the power of the county council to take back or of the district council to refuse delegation—are to be exercised in only a comparatively small number of cases?
That may well be the answer. We all know from experience that provisions in Acts of Parliament—and. still more, in Statutory Instruments—that at first sight do not appear to make a great deal of sense, or may say something that appears remarkably obvious, are actually necessary and sensible and will work out all right. However, I think that before approving these Regulations the Minister should tell us how he expects that these proposed schemes of delegation will work.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to second the Motion.
I have little to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has said, except to say that these Regulations are really the third stage in the Government's policy in delegating functions from county authorities to district authorities. In the Local Government Act we have very similar facilities for delegation by education authorities to excepted districts, and the delegation, in the same way, of health functions by the Ministry of Health.
As my hon. Friend has rightly said, one of the difficulties in assessing what new departure these Regulations will make is to know precisely what attitude the Government will adopt in regard to voluntary powers under paragraph 3. Is this merely a rehash of existing Regulations, in which there is to be no difference at all in the existing powers, or does it mean a departure from the old policy—a widening of the power of delegation to authorities other than the excepted councils?
In other words, I should like to know what is meant by the words
A local planning authority…may with…consent…enter into an agreement…
Further, what is meant by paragraph 5 (5), which says that where there is no agreement
The Minister may, on application…
make a delegation if he is satisfied that there are special circumstances?
Those are practically the same words that are used in the Local Government Act. I do not think that authorities have been altogether very happy about the way in which, for example, the Minister of Health has been exercising his powers of making exceptions for special reasons.


In what special circumstances is it proposed to make this delegation? What matters will the Minister take into account when he is giving to county districts that are not excepted councils powers of delegation?
Some people will undoubtedly feel that the whole idea of delegating town planning powers to district authorities is dangerous, but I must confess my belief that provided the development plan is treated on a wide enough scale—in some cases it should probably be treated on a scale even wider than that used by most existing planning authorities—there is a case for saying that the smaller authorities, with their local knowledge and with a local appreciation of what was involved, can exercise functions of control of development.
The danger is that they may wreck the whole plan by acts that may seem to them to be quite harmless acts, but are ill-judged enough to wreck the whole idea of the plan. We must safeguard ourselves against that danger. At the same time, if the plan is adequately appreciated by most district councils, if the planning authority goes to the trouble of consulting them, and explaining the details of the plan, most district councils can be relied upon to play their part in seeing that the spirit of the plan is maintained.
On the other hand, many district councils will be very disappointed to learn that, apparently, there is not to be a wider degree of compulsory delegation. In the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill there was a good deal of argument to the effect that many local authorities with a population of under 60,000 are well qualified by experience and by everything else to exercise these powers. It is my bounden duty to bear witness to the fact that I think the Borough of Widnes is one of those. There will be many local authorities whose officers have had considerable experience, and they will be wanting to know and will be watching cautiously and hoping that the Minister will give some indication tonight what kind of requirements he will stipulate and what kind of factors he will take into account.
I think that my hon. Friend was wise to move for a debate on these Regulations, not because, in general, one objects to the idea of delegation at all,

but simply because Regulations are obscure, as they lead to a great deal of speculation among local authorities, both among the larger and the smaller authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take an opportunity at this reasonably early hour of giving us a disquisition on what is the policy of the Government on delegation, how far they want to go, and the kind of guidance they will give to authorities with regard to delegating these powers.

8.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have approached these Regulations in a spirit of constructive inquiry, and I shall try to answer their questions.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has spoken of his relationship with me when we might have finished up as opponents in the same constituency. He has not mentioned, however, that we are both seeking, as townsmen, to understand for the first time the intricacies of town and country planning. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who seconded the Motion, have rightly questioned whether the purpose of town planning can be safely reconciled with delegation of some of its functions, and it is to that that I must address myself before describing in detail the Regulations themselves.
It seems to me that planning has to try to reconcile two apparently conflicting principles: on the one hand, that development plans should be made by the elected representatives on the basis of an area as a whole; and, on the other hand, that the elected representatives and the inhabitants of individual places within that area should be able to decide within the development plan as much as possible of the details of local development.
Hon. Members have rightly asked, from both points of view, whether the larger authority is retaining effective overall planning control, and, on the other hand, whether there is going to be an effective transfer of planning power to the smaller authorities. This has been discussed for a long time. The solution envisaged in the 1947 Act was to give county councils, as local planning authorities, control of the development plan


but to encourage delegation of the control of the development itself within that plan to county districts.
Regulations were made in 1947 for this to occur on an agreed basis in each area, but at that time the development plans themselves had not been drawn up, and it was always thought that local planning authorities would have to reconsider their delegation arrangements as development plans in their areas came to be approved. This process of reconsideration of delegation arrangements was caught up in the general review of local government functions which has been taking place from 1955 onwards, and since then there have been a number of discussions with the associations of local authorities.
In 1957 the White Paper on Local Government Functions said that county councils could retain overall responsibility but that within this local authorities with more than 60,000 population should be given more planning power. After further discussions, the Regulations which are the subject of this Prayer were published.
I will now go through the Regulations briefly, answering, on the way, questions which the hon. Gentlemen have asked, and then try to sum up at the end. As the hon. Member for Fulham rightly observed, Regulations 3 and 4 are really only the re-enactment of the relevant 1947 Regulations. They reserve the right of local planning authorities, with the consent of the Minister, to agree the delegation of power under Part III of the Act.
It is Regulation 5 which is new. Regulation 5 requires local planning authorities to delegate powers under Part III and VIII of the 1947 Act in the manner set out in detail in the Schedule to county districts with populations of 60,000 or more—they are called excepted councils—which so claim within a defined period. That requirement under Regulation 5 is limited to county districts with populations of 60,000 or more. Also, Regulation 5 permits county districts with smaller populations to apply to the Minister to be treated as excepted councils and authorises the Minister to agree if he is satisfied that there are special circumstances justifying this.
Quite understandably, I am now asked what these special circumstances are. No criteria have been drawn up by my right hon. Friend, but I think I can safely say that he will, obviously, take into account, among other things, the size of the local authority applying to be treated as an excepted council. Obviously, the nearer it comes to having a population of 60,000, the more will be its chance that it will not be excluded on grounds of size. Obviously, also, he will take into account the probable rate of growth of the local authority, and I think he will consider, also, its record and its interest in planning matters. I imagine that another criterion might well be the extent to which the authority is, as it were, easily physically identifiable. These are only some of the considerations which will be taken into account. I must reserve to my right hon. Friend freedom to consider each case upon its merits in order to decide whether there are the special justifying circumstances mentioned in this part of Regulation 5. The next part of Regulation 5 excludes the Metropolitan Area itself and the National Parks from the effect of these Regulations.
We then come to the Schedule, which defines the powers which must be delegated to the excepted councils. They are all the powers in Parts III and VIII of the 1947 Act, broadly the powers which deal with control of development as opposed to the definition of development, except Sections 25 and 29 of the Act. As the hon. Member for Fulham correctly divined, these did not need to be delegated because they were already given to county districts concurrently with counties by the 1947 Act. He correctly stated, also, that powers connected with minerals are excluded from automatic delegation, although, of course, they may be delegated by agreement under Regulation 3.
Section 25 concerns agreements with developers, and Section 29 covers preservation orders for buildings. These are the two sections which concurrently remain with both authorities, as they have since 1947. Counties and county districts, therefore, have parallel powers, in these matters, but any disagreement between them would fall to be settled by the Minister, whose consent is needed for the exercise of powers by whichever of the two authorities chooses to exercise them. It is provided, further, that


the county is required by paragraph 1 (2, c) of the Schedule to consult with the county district before making any decision.
I come now to the one major limitation of delegation, which is set out in paragraph 1 (2, a) of the Schedule. The county district must obtain the written consent of the county before permitting development which conflicts with the development plan or with proposals amending the plan approved by resolution of the authority and communicated to the county district. It seems to me that this is the fundamental protection that the authority drawing up the development plan, namely, the county council, must have if the dangers foreseen by the hon. Member are to be avoided. It is normally, of course, a consultation that will occur and does occur in the normal friendly relationship between all planning authorities, but this gives a formal limitation to the power of the county districts to authorise any development that is not approved by the development plan.
The only other limitation is in paragraph 2 of the Schedule. This gives counties the right to exercise powers under four separate Sections of the 1947 Act when in their view county districts have either refused or neglected to exercise their own delegated functions. I will run briefly through these four Sections. Section 21 covers the revocation and modification of planning permission. Section 26 covers the discontinuance of authorised use. Section 28 covers tree preservation orders. All these are subject to the Minister's consent. So that the county would have to prove to the Minister's satisfaction that the action which it proposes to take was justified on merits. It cannot merely say, "We decree that the county district has refused or neglected to carry out its delegated functions". It has to satisfy the Minister that this is so and that its intervention was justified on merits. Obviously if the county district objects it would be enabled to put its views to the Minister, and there is normally, in such circumstances, a public inquiry.
Section 23, the fourth of these Sections on which a county council can intervene on the grounds of refusal or neglect, covers the enforcement of planning con

trol and enables the county to ensure compliance if for any reason the county district fails to do so. In this case, appeal is not to my right hon. Friend but to the courts.
These are all reserve powers, and they are unlikely to be used except very rarely since we expect a continuance of the good relations between all local authorities which we have come to accept. It is, of course, possible that these reserve powers might be used in such circumstances as follows. Suppose that a county district dislikes a project but not enough to be willing to pay compensation which might fall on it under Sections 21, 26 or 28. Suppose that the county might be willing to pay compensation that would be involved if it took action to stop that development. Here would be a case where the reserve powers would be useful and might be implemented without any disagreement whatsoever, only, obviously, on the consent of the Minister.
So much for the four cases where the county council can intervene. The Schedule goes on to permit county districts to refer certain applications for development and applications to determine whether permission is needed under Sections 14, 17 and 18 of the Act to the county. Here we are trying to meet unforeseeable cases which might arise where a county district might take the view that a particular development affected areas outside its own and that the decision therefore should be taken by the larger authority. That is just one example of the use to which this power to refer decisions might be put. However, I emphasise to the hon. Member for Fulham that this is no derogation of the delegating of powers since this is invoked only on the initiative of the country district. It is not the case that the county council can reach out and intervene under Sections 14, 17 and 18 of the parent Act. Intervention can be made only on the invitation of the county district.
The Schedule next requires county districts to keep the county informed of all decisions taken, an essential step if the county is to retain over-all control. Finally, the Schedule lays down that the county district should bear compensation payable as a result of its exercise of delegating functions except in cases where the county has agreed, on being


approached before the decision is taken, to bear the compensation wholly or in part.
So much for a brief description of the Regulations. May I now try to answer the hon. Member for Fulham by summing up the powers that will rest on either side as a result? The county council will have drawn up and will retain the right to draw up the development plan. In the circular which my right hon. Friend sent out with these Regulations, he urged that full consultations should take place at the development plan stage and that wherever the county district had suitable staff it should be asked to prepare the original survey. But the power to prepare the development plan lies with the county. It has to prepare the plan and under the Regulations it must be informed of every decision taken by the county district, whether in accord with the development plan or not. The county has the added protection that its written consent has to be obtained for any approval to be given to any sort of development that falls outside the development plan or outside any proposals to amend the development plan approved by resolution of the council and notified to the county district.
Hon. Members might say, "Very well, the county is protected so far, but what happens if the county district misinterprets the development plan and in all innocence, or even without innocence, grants permission for something which the county believes to be outside the development plan?" Two things are in either the regulations or the circular to cover this point. In the first place, my right hon. Friend is encouraging all county councils to define in more detail by written statements the exact requirements of the development plan. A circular stressing the importance of this in the new circumstances is in preparation now.
Secondly, since the county is informed of all decisions, it is in just such a case where a county district has in all innocence stepped outside the development plan that the county council would be entitled to invoke some of its reserve powers under Section 21 or Section 26 and seek the consent of the Minister to vary, revoke, or modify or discontinue a

planning permission. In such circumstances, a county council would have to accept responsibility for compensation.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Parliamentary Secretary has said twice that where the county council wants to exercise its reserve powers under Sections 21, 23, 26, or 28 it has to obtain the consent of the Minister. It could not just say to a county district, "You are not doing the job, so we are going to do it." Where does that power appear in the Regulations? Paragraph 2 of the Schedule says that it can do it where in its opinion the county district has refused or neglected to exercise its delegated function, but is there anything in the Regulations themselves?

Sir K. Joseph: No, we have to go back to the parent Act, and in three of those Sections—I think they are Sections 21, 26 and 28—the Minister's consent is required. So much, therefore, for the position of the county. I hope that it will be seen that the county retains an effective over-all planning control. Now what about the county district?

Mr. F. V. Corfield: The Parliamentary Secretary tells us about the safeguards for the county council. In cases where the delegated local authority refuses permission, as such authorities are apt to do with certain unpopular types of development such as caravan sites, the result will be that where there is a demand for sites, the county council will have no alternative but to force a smaller authority, where power is not delegated, to accept caravan sites to its detriment and to the advantage of other authorities. Is there any means whereby the county council can insist that a rural district authority can alter a refusal into an approval?

Sir K. Joseph: I must confess that I am not in a position to answer that interesting point, but I will look into it and will send an answer to my hon. Friend. Of course, he is assuming, as he has a right to assume since we have to look at the exceptional cases, that there is not good consultation and relationship between the authorities concerned, but I will look into that point.
I was going to define briefly the position of the county district and to see whether delegation is, in fact, an effective transfer of power. Here I would


say that excepted councils—that is to say, those with a population of 60,000 and over and those who so claim the status of excepted councils—under Regulation 5, will obtain complete freedom of planning control within the development plan. The only limitation upon this control is if the county council can satisfy the Minister that the county district or non-county borough has either refused or neglected to carry out its delegated functions, and in that case one must say that the county district has only itself to blame.
It is true that the county district has a power to refer decisions under Sections 14, 17 and 18 to the county council but, as I have stressed, this is entirely on its own initiative and does not minimise the delegation to it in any way. The only other effective limitation on its delegated powers is that, as the hon. Gentleman said, mineral workings are excluded from the delegation unless there is agreement to that effect.
The fact is that neither counties nor county districts can operate without considering each other. Neither can expect unrestricted autonomy. A pattern of delegation is set out for excepted councils in the Regulations. With other councils my right hon. Friend expects to be kept informed in due course of the arrangements made for appropriate degrees of delegation which he urges upon county councils in the circular which accompanies the Regulations. Generally we can expect two-way co-operation between those concerned, but it is only proper that there should be machinery provided for those exceptional cases where co-operation is less than complete, or even where a genuine misunderstanding occurs.
I therefore maintain that excepted councils are left with virtually full power of decision within the development plan. They will have the job of controlling local development, subject to conforming with the development plan, but if this is to be achieved to the satisfaction of everyone, the development plan must be crystal-clear, and there must be the closest co-operation between the technical staff and the authorities concerned.

County districts which are not excepted should also have suitable degrees of delegated powers tailored to fit the agreement of the county and themselves, and this is urged in the circular, though not in the Regulations, and will be watched by my right bon. Friend, who has asked to be kept fully informed.
I contend that these Regulations in a difficult field strike a balance, leaving the strategic decisions to be made by the county council and the tactical decisions, within the broad strategy, by the county districts, and I hope very much that I have been able to answer satisfactorily the questions asked.

Mr. M. Stewart: Before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down, may I press him again about paragraph 2 of the Schedule? Having consulted the parent Act, I understand that if, for example, an order is made under Section 26 of the Act requiring that buildings should be altered or removed, that order, whether made by a county or by a district, requires the consent of the Minister. But what we are discussing now is who has the power to make the order and submit it to the Minister for confirmation, the county or the district? As far as I read the Regulation, if the county thinks the district is not doing that job well, it can take the job away from the district and its own judgment is sufficient for that. It does not have to ask the Minister and can take to itself the power of making the order, though it will still have to submit it to the Minister for confirmation.

Sir K. Joseph: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The answer is, I think, that the county council can make an order, but it is ineffective until the Minister has given his consent, and the Minister would not give his consent without seeing whether there was any objection from the county district, and if there was an objection he would normally hold a public inquiry.

Mr. M. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITY MEETINGS (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Cyril Black.

Sir Cyril Black: Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon) rose—

Mr. Peter Kirk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to forestall my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), but I understand that he proposes to raise the question of the exclusion of the Press from local authority meetings. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the first order of business for next Friday is a Bill treating precisely with this matter. I do not want to prevent my hon. Friend from raising the subject, but I wonder whether you could give the House some guidance as to the extent of the debate on this point this evening.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk). He has anticipated what I was about to say to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), namely, that, as he knows quite well, he cannot, on this Motion, invite legislation. I shall be compelled to ask him to explain to me, if he is saying to me, as I anticipate, that there exist powers which are not properly exercised, what are the powers which exist which he says have not been duly exercised.

Sir C. Black: Sir C. Black rose—

Mr. F. Blackburn: Further to that point of order. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) to raise this question at all, since it will be dealt with in the Bill which is to be before the House on Friday of this week? I think that it would be most unfair to the hon. Lady who is promoting the Bill if the debate which is to take place on Friday were anticipated tonight. I do not want to prevent the hon. Member for Wimbledon from speaking, but I think that his speech ought to be made on Friday and not tonight. I cannot see how he can possibly deal with this subject without encroaching upon Friday's debate.

Mr. Speaker: I reveal no secret in saying that I entertain the same difficulties as are in the mind of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), but since the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who desires to raise the matter on the Adjournment, is saying that he is not asking for legislation, he would be in order in this respect, as it seems to me. Whereas the Bill on Friday will be asking for legislation and new powers, the hon. Member would be in order now if he were saying that what he wishes to raise is the maladministration or failure adequately to administer what are the existing powers. It was in that respect that I was asking for his assistance to make sure that he kept in order.

Sir C. Black: I am sure that hon. Members are greatly indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for having made clear to us what are the limits of the debate this evening. I can assure you that I have no intention of dealing with any matters which could impinge on the discussion of the Bill on Friday next. I merely want to deal with the position as it is under the law as it stands at this moment.
Perhaps I ought to make it clear that I had hoped that it might have been possible for me to raise this matter before the Christmas Recess. Indeed, I was endeavouring to obtain an opportunity of doing so, but that opportunity did not come. If I could have raised the matter then, I should, of course, have been somewhat nearer in point of time to the events to which I want to refer this evening. However, I am greatly obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for having pointed out the limits of this debate, and I will strictly confine my remarks within them.
The present rights of the Press were established more than fifty years ago, in the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908. I think that it might be useful if I referred to the relevant Section in that Act upon which what I want to say this evening is based. Section I reads:
Representatives of the press shall be admitted to the meetings of every local authority: Provided that a local authority may temporarily exclude such representatives…when…in view of the special nature of the business then being dealt with…such exclusion is advisable in the public interest.


That has been the legal position of the rights of the Press to attend meetings of local authorities and to report on their proceedings for rather more than fifty years.
It is important that we should realise that this Section raises the issue of the kind of matters which might justify the exclusion of the Press in the public interest. The test to be applied in such cases is the nature of the business dealt with by the local authority at the point at which it is desired to exclude the Press. That is to say, in deciding whether it is in the public interest at a particular moment to exclude the Press, the only criterion is reference to the nature of the business being dealt with at that time.
Those of us who have had experience of service on local authorities do not find ourselves in any serious doubt about what kind of business it is which makes the exclusion of the Press desirable in the public interest. Perhaps I might mention three kinds of business which would come under that heading. For instance, if a local authority were about to consider in a preliminary way the possible purchase of land or property, it might well be that premature disclosure would result in speculators stepping in and buying the land or property to the detriment of the local authority. In such a case, no one would doubt that it would be in the public interest for the Press to be excluded while a matter of that kind was being considered.
From time to time a local authority has to consider the conduct of an officer or employee of the authority. If such matters of discipline or conduct had to be discussed in public, with the Press present, very great hardship to the person whose conduct was under consideration might be involved.
Yet again, a local authority might be engaged in same legal proceedings, and if the whole subject matter of those legal proceedings, at an early stage, were to be debated in public, it might be very much to the detriment of the interests of the local authority at that stage for the other parties to the legal proceedings to be informed of the nature of the case of the authority.
Those are three classes of cases, and there are other matters of the same kind, which will be recognised by all hon. Members as being the kind of case in which the public interest can properly be served by the exclusion of the Press while those matters are being debated.

Mr. Speaker: I regret the need to interrupt the hon. Member. Evidently, I did not make my meaning clear to him. My trouble is to find some power which the Minister has under the existing law, involving Ministerial responsibility, which would enable him, without legislation, to correct an abuse of the system which the hon. Member is saying is now established by law.

Sir C. Black: I think that I can do that in this way. The Minister has answered Questions within recent months on the very matters to which I wanted and was about to refer. The Minister has sent circular letters to certain local authorities expressing to them his displeasure with certain of their actions in excluding the Press, as he suggested, wrongfully, from meetings of those authorities. We can therefore assume that the Minister has power—indeed, he has exercised it—to communicate with local authorities in cases where they act in abuse of the Act of 1908.
I was going to ask the Minister to use that power of communication more widely than he has so far done, and to send a general communication to local authorities setting out the considerations which they ought to have in mind when deciding to exclude the Press from their meetings. I was about to ask the Minister to take action on a rather wider basis that he has already taken in certain specific cases.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall have to invoke the assistance of the Minister. I wonder whether he would be good enough to tell me whether he conceives that he has power to require local authorities to admit the Press when they, ex hypothesi, contrary to the existing law, exclude them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): My right hon. Friend has said that this is a matter for the courts to define, but he has said that whether or not local authorities have offended the letter of the Act of 1908,


where he has considered that they have offended against the spirit of the law, he has, in certain circumstances, taken it upon himself to write or cause letters to be written to them. If I were given the chance of replying to my hon. Friend's speech I would refer to the occasions when he had so written.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the Minister.

Sir C. Black: Last year, many important local authorities, wrongly, I submit, excluded the Press from their meetings and stopped the ordinary Press relations which were in existence between themselves and the Press, not for any reasons of public interest, not because of the nature of the business which was being dealt with at the meetings, but as a result of an industrial dispute in the printing industry.
By way of example, Liverpool City Council resolved itself into committee to exclude the Press. Birmingham City Council instructed the chairman of committees and officials not to give news to the city's emergency evening newspapers.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt again, but I believe that this is a matter which will be put right by the Bill which is to be introduced into the House on Friday.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will appreciate the difficulty. That may well be so, but since the hon. Member is saying that he is not requiring any legislation, or requesting it, and the Bill involves new powers, I consider the hon. Member to be in order. The hon. Member is riding along a razor edge no doubt, but he is in order.

Sir C. Black: I will continue very carefully to keep on that razor edge. As I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, I have been very careful not to transcend the rules of order to which you have most carefully drawn our attention.
I was about to give further examples. Leeds Corporation withheld municipal news from reporters. Nottingham City Council excluded the Press from its meetings, and other incidents of a similar kind took place in respect of other local authorities. In my view, the actions of these local authorities were probably contrary to the letter of the law, but there can be no doubt that they

were directly contrary to the spirit of the law as based on the Act of 1908.
Because of these events the Press Council passed the following resolution:
The General Council of the Press condemns the action of those local authorities which, during the present dispute in the printing industry, have excluded journalists from their proceedings. The Council regards such action as a gross violation of the right of the subject to be kept informed of the proceedings of his elected representatives.
I suggest that that is a statement with which hon. Members on both sides of the House will find themselves in agreement. This is a matter of vital importance to every citizen and to all those connected with the free Press of this country. The president of the Guild of British Newspapers Editors, in a recent address in London, was reported as saying:
The threats to shackle free reporting come from many quarters and in different guises, but wherever and whenever they come our stand as editors must be unequivocal and uncompromising. Only in recent months we have witnessed the most ugly and despotic interventions to stifle the freedom of the Press by the very people elected to safeguard civic rights and liberties. That a trade dispute could be used as a reason for making it impossible for the Press to discharge its proper functions only went to prove how easy it was for the free institutions of this country to be undermined. Those local authorities who…use their prerogative in the council chambers to prevent journalists doing their duty, and to deny free citizens their right to know, must be branded as the enemies of the people and the blacklegs of democracy.
As we have already seen, the Minister's powers in this matter are very limited, but he has certain duties and responsibilities. It may be that he cannot control events, but he can certainly influence events, and he has already done so in reference to some of the episodes to which I have drawn the attention of the House by writing to the local authorities concerned and expressing to them his displeasure at what they have done. My purpose in raising the matter tonight is to draw attention to something which we probably all regard as of the highest importance.
I want to ask my hon. Friend whether his right hon. Friend can go somewhat beyond the letter that he has already sent to certain offending local authorities by sending out a circular to all local authorities making clear to them the normal right of the Press to attend meetings of the authorities and also the very limited


circumstances in which the Press can properly and legally be excluded. I am certain that my right hon. Friend shares the general concern about this important matter, which affects the very essence of our democracy and free institutions. Will the Parliamentary Secretary see what further action can be taken to give the widest possible publicity to this matter, which has caused very great concern?

9.35 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I do not think anyone will doubt the importance of this subject raised by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), but I still maintain that probably it will be the main line of argument of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she introduces her Bill on Friday this week. That is why I thought the hon. Member for Wimbledon was anticipating a subject which will be debated again. It is possible that you, Mr. Speaker, will have to listen to the same speech twice.
I do not know the views of the hon. Member for Finchley, nor her arguments in favour of the Bill, but I anticipate that what the hon. Member for Wimbledon has been saying will be very much in her mind when she is dealing with arguments about the admission of the Press to local authority meetings. In the circumstances, it would have been preferable if this debate had not taken place tonight and the hon. Member for Wimbledon had not stolen the thunder of the hon. Member for Finchley.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) made it perfectly clear that the Minister can only express displeasure and has no legal right or power to overrule a decision of a local authority in this matter. Therefore, I suggest to you that this debate is completely out of order.

Mr. Speaker: The position, as I understand it, is that the Minister is here accepting responsibility for sending out circulars to local authorities saying, in effect, how they should behave in the circumstances. The plea of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) is. I understand, that those circulars are too modest in tone and should be fortified and invigorated. I cannot hold that to

be out of order, although I am aware of the difficulty.

9.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): With great diffidence, I start by saying that what I said a little earlier should be corrected if, in fact, I mentioned a circular. What my right hon. Friend did was to send a letter to a particular authority, which was published and, therefore, was made known to the whole country. While I am not saying that a circular would not be practicable, no circular has, in fact, been sent.
The subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) this evening is an important one, as we all agree. It is one on which attention was so strongly focused last year that it is perhaps better that we should consider it now in a calmer atmosphere than would have then prevailed. The main point is: what considerations should a local authority have in mind when deciding whether or not to exclude the Press from its meetings? Here I shall try most carefully to avoid saying anything which could be considered in any way as a comment on the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on Friday. I should like to emphasise that nothing I say is to be taken as foreshadowing the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government on that Bill.
I shall speak this evening solely about the position as it stands today, when, as the House knows, the statutory scene is monopolised by the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908. Under that Act local authorities are required to admit the Press to council meetings, though not, in general, to committee meetings, unless they have passed a special resolution to exclude them. The wording of the 1908 Act says that representatives of the Press may be temporarily excluded from council meetings when the majority of the members present have passed a resolution saying that
in view of the special nature of the business then being dealt with, or about to be dealt with, such exclusion is advisable in the public interest.
The terms of the Act deserve to be specially studied, because they clearly


say that the Press should be excluded from council meetings only when the special nature of the business justifies it.

Mr. Blackburn: That would not prevent the council going into committee, would it?

Sir K. Joseph: Certainly not. The hon. Member is quite correct. That is under the 1908 Act, and it is only about the position under that Act that I am talking this evening.
The Act does not say: when it would be convenient to the members, or whenever the council is at loggerheads with the proprietors of the local newspaper. It ties the exclusion of the Press specifically to the business under discussion. This is a fundamental point and one that is generally well recognised, but it does no harm to recall from time to time the basic principles which are sometimes lost sight of in the heat of immediate disputes.
There is little doubt that these thoughts were not always uppermost in the minds of certain councils whose actions made news during the printing dispute last year. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, there were instances in which councils excluded reporters from their meetings either by the device of going into committee, or by passing a resolution which required the Press to withdraw. The debates on those resolutions made it clear that members were thinking not of the items they were to discuss while the Press was absent, but of their views on the conduct and cause of the printing dispute.
The rights or wrongs of this dispute are outside our debate this evening, but the attitude of those few local authorities greatly concern my right hon. Friend. His view was clearly set out on 6th July last, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), when he said:
I strongly deprecate the action of any local authority which excludes the Press and the public from its meetings for any reason save that the nature of the business requires it to be considered in private."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1959; Vol.608, c.100.]
The Minister's view was elaborated in a letter which at his direction was sent by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry to the Town Clerk of Nottingham on 16th July last. I do not want to single out Nottingham for special approbrium

but this letter received a good deal of publicity at the time in the Press and was reproduced in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT with an Answer given on 23rd July by my predecessor, now the Postmaster-General. As this letter touches directly on the point we are discussing I should like to quote from it.
It has been represented to the Minister that it was quite clear from the proceedings that the reasons which moved the majority of the Council to take steps to exclude Press representatives from the recent meeting were not connected with the confidential nature of the business to be transacted, but were solely concerned with the present printing dispute; and further evidence of this is afforded by the fact that members of the public and a representative of the B.B.C. were allowed to remain. On his present information, the Minister finds it impossible to reach any different conclusion.…
Whether or not the action taken by the Council as described to the Minister offends the letter of the Act of 1908, he has no doubt that it is wholly contrary to the spirit of the Act and to the principles which local authorities should observe in their relations with the Press. The Minister has felt bound to say, in reply to representations, that he is wholly out of sympathy with any council which deprives the local electors of the opportunity to inform themselves from Press reports about council business. He has also said that he is wholly out of sympathy with any local authority which take sides in an industrial dispute."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23rd July, 1959; Vol.609. c.165.]
The quotation which I have just read emphasises another point which needs to be made in this connection. Although the statutory right of admission is given to the Press, the main obligation which the council owes is to the public. The Press is the channel through which information about council business reaches the electors and ratepayers. Local authorities are public bodies chosen by local people and spending public money. They represent the whole locality and not one section of it. It should be one of the principal concerns of each authority to ensure that the public has the fullest possible information about what is being done in their name.
No one denies that there are some matters—for example, some of the illustrations given by my hon. Friend—which ought properly to be considered in private—matters connected with the personal circumstances of individuals, for instance, or with proposed land transactions or impending prosecutions.


But the justification for privacy must depend on the nature of the business under consideration.
This view is, of course, already held and acted upon by all responsible authorities—that is, by nearly all local authorities—and I think that we should make sure that we do not get the picture out of proportion. A few local authorities—and a few only—acted last year at the time of the printing dispute in a way which most people regarded as irresponsible. In addition, there are some local authorities who, at all times, exclude the Press more frequently than they need. They are only a small minority. By far the greater proportion are keenly aware of their responsibilities and have worked out satisfactory relationships with their local Press, giving them, in many cases, facilities which go well beyond the legal minimum required by the Act of 1908.
Let me quote two examples which have recently been mentioned in the newspapers. Darwen, in Lancashire, started four months ago to admit the Press to all its committee meetings. It started on an experimental basis, but when the council met earlier this month it decided by a substantial majority to continue the practice. Very few local authorities admit the Press to all their committees, but Darwen's experience seems to show that it can be done and that there are authorities who are prepared to give these facilities to the Press.
At Cheltenham, the council is willing to go even further. Cheltenham, according to the reports, is to allow its council meetings to be televised in a few days' time.
My right hon. Friend's views of the behaviour of the very few local authorities who took this action at the time of the printing dispute are well known, and there is no reason to restate them again, either in a letter or in a circular, especially when so very few local authorities offended and when my hon. Friend's speech will, I am sure, remind those who need reminding of the general attitude towards this sort of behaviour. I hope that the concern so widely felt and echoed this evening will have its effect.
As I have said, local authorities are public bodies chosen by local people and spending public money. The vast majority of them conform admirably to both the spirit and the letter of their obligations, and we must hope that the small remaining minority will, in future, see their duty as being first and foremost to the public as a whole and not to any one section of it.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there are very few exceptions in this matter. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) mentioned one or two of them. I think that it would be right for the Minister on this occasion to make an announcement about the few local authorities which have felt in the past that they had reason to exclude some of the local Press, and particularly the provincial Press, from some of the meetings which have taken place in their area.
Under the 1908 Act, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, they can rightly exclude the Press from any of the committees which are dealing with the purchase of land or property or are dealing with the conduct of an officer or employee of the corporation. Thirdly, the Press may be excluded if the local authority itself is involved in legal proceedings. There may have been other occasions when they have had reason to go into committee when the council has been in session, by excluding the Press, either by moving a specific resolution or by going into committee earlier.
There are only a few local authorities doing it, and the Minister ought, therefore, to try to find out the reason why they are doing it. It may be that in some of these areas the local and provincial Press—the national daily newspapers are not particularly interested in these proceedings—are anti-local authority, and an atmosphere may have developed within that area in which the local authority is particularly perturbed about the way in which the local and the provincial newspapers are reporting the proceedings in the council chamber or in some of the committees to which they are invited.
Although I am very pleased that the Minister said that there are very few of these local authorities, it is worth noting


that there are some and that they are probably doing it very often. It may be that because of some of the local newspapers, and perhaps because of the make-up of the local authority and the party which is in power, possibly with a big majority, an atmosphere has developed which has caused feeling against the Press. I should be very glad if, before the debate concludes, the Minister would also give a warning to the local Press that they should be just as responsible as he is asking these local authorities to be.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I had not intended to intervene, but I am brought to my feet by the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), not necessarily to defend my own industry, the Press, but simply to suggest to him that the fact that some local newspaper may be against the local authority—that certainly happens, and we all know of cases in which it happens—does not justify the local authority in excluding the Press. We all know of news-

papers which from time to time appear to be against this House, but I do not think anyone would ever suggest that the facilities which we provide for them to report our proceedings should be withdrawn. For most of the time we are only too anxious for them to report our proceedings, and we wish they would do it more often.
The same thing applies to local authorities. Of course, newspapers have their responsibilities. Of course, from time to time they do not realise it. Nevertheless, I should hate it to be thought that it was the opinion of the House that the fact that a local newspaper is falling down on its duty gives the local authority a right to exclude the local newspaper. I do not think it does. There are various ways of getting round that situation. It would be an unfortunate suggestion if the hon. Member for Barnsley meant that that was a justification for such an act by a local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Ten o'clock.